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: 2020-10-26
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge McLaughlin
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1156
The trial court properly excluded evidence of defendant's pre-arrest breath test results given the unreliable nature of such results and the fact that excluding such evidence did not interfere with defendant's presentation of his voluntary intoxication defense in this first-degree murder case. The superior court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.
Publication Date: 2020-10-26
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Tira
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1044
The court found a child was incompetent to testify due to lack of maturity, so the child's hearsay statement could not be admitted into evidence.
Publication Date: 2020-10-12
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge McCoy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1011
The minor child's statement to her mother, which potentially described an incident of indecent assault by her father, was not admissible under the Tender Years Hearsay Act as there was no evidence that the child was unavailable to testify due to serious emotional distress that would impair her ability to reasonably communicate with the court. The court denied mother's petition.
Publication Date: 2020-09-21
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Rufe
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1035
Drug manufacturer's motion for the continued sealing of certain expert reports failed, except as to the redaction of study subject personal information, because the common law presumption of public access, the lack of harm manufacturer would face, the significance of the litigation and number of people affected required public disclosure. Motion denied in part and granted in part.
Publication Date: 2020-08-31
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0945
Defendant appealed the exclusion of his proffered expert testimony as to his intent in his 18 U.S.C. §2251(a) charges and court found it could not review an adjunct-presented non-ruling that caused defendant to plead guilty where law clerk told counsel that judge would exclude the evidence under F.R.E. 403 and 704(b) but no formal ruling, order or opinion was ever docketed. Vacated and remanded.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Joseph S. Britton
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2020-08-17
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Stevens
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0875
The trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence related to the causation of the victim's death based on the dismissal of criminal homicide chargesas such evidence was relevant to the remaining charge of aggravated assault and whether defendant caused the victim serious bodily injury that created a "substantial risk of death." The superior court reversed and remanded.
Publication Date: 2020-08-10
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Manufacturing
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Donohue
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0859
Superior court properly reversed trial court's grant of pesticide manufacturers' Frye motion in product liability action because trial court abused its discretion by reviewing the scientific literature at a granular level to make its own judgments about which studies relied on by plaintiff's experts were scientifically acceptable. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2020-04-27
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: Health Care
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Olson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0428
The trial court erred in finding that the psychotherapist-client privilege in 42 Pa.C.S. §5944 applied to incriminating statements defendant made to a fellow patient while at a mental health treatment center since he did not make the statements to a member of his treatment team during treatment and the statements were not confidential. The superior court vacated in part and remanded.
Publication Date: 2020-02-24
Practice Area: Evidence | Health Care Law
Industry: Health Care
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Dubow
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0204
Hospital appealed discovery order directing it to produce the unredacted credentialing file for physician and court found trial court properly relied on Reginelli v Boggs, 181 A.3d 293, to order production of the file since the credentialing committee was a "review organization" and the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act also did not preclude production of the file. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2020-01-06
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry:
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Shogan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1511
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant's young daughter competent to testify as a witness at trial where she demonstrated an ability to distinguish between the truth and a lie and her testimony regarding defendant's sexual abuse of her was admissible as evidence of prior bad acts proving a common scheme, plan or design. The appellate court affirmed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read