Filter This View

  • United States v. Kraynak

    Publication Date: 2021-09-27
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
    Judge: District Judge Brann
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-1110

    Government moved to exclude doctor's expert's testimony in case where doctor was indicted for unlawful distribution of controlled substances and deaths from those substances and court found expert's opinions were not reliable and had limited probative value, were likely to mislead the jury and would distract jury from the central questions of whether doctor issued prescriptions without a legitimate medical purpose and whether the prescribed drugs were the but-for cause of death of the decedents. Motion granted.

  • United States v. Hovan

    Publication Date: 2021-09-13
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Energy
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Brody
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-1059

    Defendant, charged with conspiring to purchase and sell Iranian oil, moved to suppress evidence and argued his consent to search his personal and work phones was coerced and court found well-educated businessman was given his Miranda warnings, agreed to talk to FBI agents, made several unprompted offers early in the interview to show the agents the contents of his phones and signed the consent to search forms after 32 minutes of a polite and conversational interview. Motion denied.

  • Commonwealth v. Barasky

    Publication Date: 2021-08-16
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Butts
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0802

    Defendant successfully argued that law enforcement used an unreliable confidential informant and did not establish that defendant was on the other end of a phone conversation with the CI during a controlled buy where the CI had never been used in such a capacity and there were no other facts to substantiate the CI's information. The court granted defendant's motion to suppress.

  • Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick

    Publication Date: 2021-08-09
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0916

    The trial court erred in admitting a victim's compound hearsay statement into evidence at her husband's murder trial as the fact-bound aspect of the victim's hearsay note could not be bootstrapped into admissibility merely because the statement contemporaneously contained some expression of the victim's state of mind. The high court granted defendant a new trial.

  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elec. USA, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-07-26
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Electronics | Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Baylson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0857

    Where plaintiff's expert ruled out all other potential causes of a house fire and determined that there were two potential causes, both of which would be the result of a manufacturing defect, the expert was not required to show which of those two potential causes occurred because either one would impose liability. The court denied defendant's motion to exclude.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Estate Litigation 2014

    Authors: Michael R. Griffinger, Paul F. Cullum III

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Thorpe v. City of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2021-07-12
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Pratter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0789

    Incarcerated individuals subpoenaed by defendants, in plaintiff's action alleging investigatory misconduct in his conviction for a murder he did not commit, moved to quash the subpoenas asserting they would assert their fifth amendment rights and court found the motions were premature. Motions denied.

  • Barbounis v. The Middle E. Forum

    Publication Date: 2021-06-21
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Non-Profit
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Wolson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0697

    Defendant could not rely on out-of-court hearsay statements to support its motion for summary judgment on counterclaims against the plaintiff where it failed to demonstrate that two exceptions to the rule against hearsay, i.e., statements against interest and wrongfully causing a declarant's unavailability, applied. The court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaims.

  • Commonwealth v. Yale

    Publication Date: 2021-05-10
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0524

    Lower courts erred in applying Pa.R.E. 404(b) to evidence of third person guilt offered by a defendant and found Pa.R.E. 401-403 applied to the admissibility of the evidence. Vacated and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Dirosa

    Publication Date: 2021-04-19
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0418

    The prosecution produced sufficient evidence from which the trial court could infer that defendant was in actual physical control of the movement of his motor vehicle where the arresting officers found him parked outside a convenience store and slumped over in the driver's seat with the engine running and no one else in the car. The appellate court affirmed.

  • Kivett v. Neolpharma, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-04-12
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Wolson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0401

    Defendants moved to seal exhibits attached to their motion for summary judgment and court found defendants failed to make specific, detailed showing about the harm that would result from disclosure. Motion denied.