Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
216 results for '* topic:"Evidence"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-07-18
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: Construction | Education
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Leadbetter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0801
Trial court properly denied school district's exceptions to special master's reports on a motion to compel documents in action over the collapse of a retaining wall during school construction because attorney-client privilege did not protect disclosure of underlying facts by those who communicated with the attorney and project participants who were present at district's meeting with attorney were not district's agents but were third parties in a potential adversarial position with district. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2022-07-18
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: Automotive | Insurance
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Leeson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0790
While Pennsylvania law does not impose on third parties a duty to preserve evidence, plaintiff could still have a cause of action for negligence generally if the court found a duty, either contractual or otherwise, to maintain a truck involved in a serious accident and a subsequent breach of that duty. The court denied in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Publication Date: 2022-05-02
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: State and Local Government | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
Judge: Judge Binder
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0374
The court held that Criminal History Records Information Act created both a confidentiality prohibition on disclosure of body cam footage and a privilege for protected materials which called for prohibiting the district attorney from disclosing the footage. Motion to quash granted.
Publication Date: 2022-04-25
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: Automotive
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
Judge: Judge Nealon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0352
The facts sustaining a potential witness's federal cyberstalking conviction supported its classification as a crimen falsi offense for purposes of admissibility under Pa.R. Evid. 609(a) where his dishonesty and falsehoods facilitated the commission of the crime. The court denied plaintiffs' motion in limine.
Publication Date: 2022-04-25
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: Automotive
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
Judge: Judge Nealon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0351
The court held that neither individual defendant or defendant employer could be considered a spoliator because they never had defendant driver's cell phone records in their possession, the records were destroyed by a non-party, and plaintiff failed to obtain a court order to protect the records from destruction. Motion in limine denied.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-11-22
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: Education | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Pappert
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1367
Defendant moved to exclude all evidence concerning his financial status and that of his alleged co-conspirators as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial and court found defendant's salary as dean of business school and tenured professor was relevant to his alleged motive, but not what he was paid after he was terminated as dean and co-conspirators' salaries were also irrelevant. Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2021-11-15
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: Health Care
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Marston
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1337
The notes taken by the medical director of plaintiff's former employer were non-hearsay and, therefore, admissible as they fell within the party-opponent exclusion of Fed.R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D), which allows for statements made by an employer's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed. The court denied in part defendant's motion in limine.
Publication Date: 2021-11-15
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
Judge: Judge Johnson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1220
The court found that the admissions made in defendant's guilty plea to the charge of aggravated assault supported a grant of summary judgment in plaintiff's civil case against defendant on the issues of liability and causation because the operative facts in the criminal and civil cases were identical. Partial summary judgment granted to plaintiff.
Publication Date: 2021-10-25
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Musmanno
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1228
The trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts in defendant's murder trial where the proffered evidence regarding a prior incident did not demonstrate a common scheme, plan or design to target grandmothers of defendant's protagonists. The appellate court reversed and remanded.
Publication Date: 2021-10-25
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Butts
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1158
The minor victim's out-of-court statements to her grandparents and a caseworker describing a criminal sexual offense by her father were admissible under the Tender Years Hearsay Act as the proffered evidence was relevant and imbued with "sufficient indicia of reliability" to allow for its admission. The court granted the commonwealth's petition.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read