Filter This View

  • In re: Estate of Rivera

    Publication Date: 2018-08-21
    Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Gantman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0976

    Spouse not entitled to spousal share of real properties transferred by deceased spouse in the year prior to decedent's death where properties previously titled solely in decedent's name and spouse failed to present any evidence properties were legally acquired by spouse and decedent as tenants by the entireties. Decree of the orphans' court affirmed.

  • Stewart-Wilson v. U.S.A.

    Publication Date: 2018-08-21
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Federal Government | Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Hornak
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0986

    Government moved to dismiss plaintiff's medical malpractice action on statute of limitations grounds, plaintiff argued that equitable tolling applied since doctor delivered plaintiff at a non-federal regional hospital and she had no reason to know he was a federal employee and court found it had to consider the totality of the circumstances, which the record did not allow. Motion denied and discovery ordered.

  • Commonwealth v. Thomas

    Publication Date: 2018-08-21
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0969

    The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of defendant's time in prison with a key commonwealth witness, as this challenged evidence was relevant for the limited purposes of explaining the witness's recantation of his prior testimony and revealing defendant's consciousness of guilt. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Bardine v. Bardine

    Publication Date: 2018-08-21
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Olson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0970

    Where wife filed an untimely petition to open and modify the parties' marital settlement agreement, the trial court lacked authority to open the divorce decree due to intrinsic fraud and the question of whether intrinsic fraud existed was moot. The appellate court reversed and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Lamb

    Publication Date: 2018-08-21
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Cox
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0963

    While defendant's alleged conduct toward her neighbor during a dispute over the use of an alleyway might be described as aggravating and frustrating, the evidence was insufficient to satisfy all the elements of the stalking charges brought against her. The court dismissed the stalking charges against defendant.

  • Pollack v. Shell et al

    Publication Date: 2018-08-21
    Practice Area: Damages | Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0962

    There were triable issues of fact regarding the defendant landlord's knowledge of prior attacks by a tenant's pitbull and his ability to remove the dog and its owners from a rental property; however, the court dismissed plaintiff's punitive damages claim against the landlord where it was based solely upon proof of landlord's alleged actual knowledge of prior attacks by the dog. The court granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment.

  • Rhoades v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2018-08-21
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge DuBois
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0984

    Insurers moved to dismiss plaintiff's UIPA, UTPCPL, bad faith and breach of contract action relating to uninsured/underinsured coverage and court dismissed the UTPCPL count because plaintiff did not aver any false representations relating to the purchase of the policy but found that one insurer's claim, that it was a federally registered service mark and not a legal entity that could be sued, was not proper for adjudication on a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Granted in part and denied in part.

  • Sabia Landscaping, Inc. v. Long

    Publication Date: 2018-08-21
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Powell
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0967

    The parties entered into valid oral agreements which were consistent with their prior course of dealing. Plaintiff was entitled to a finder's fee where it secured a contract from which defendant benefitted.

  • Ceraul v. Gilmore et al

    Publication Date: 2018-08-21
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Pappert
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0971

    Given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, which evidence corroborated the victim's account, defendant's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the victim regarding the exact dates of the criminal conduct did not raise a substantial likelihood that the jury would have reached a different result. The court overruled defendant's objections in part.

  • Commonwealth v. Strafford

    Publication Date: 2018-08-21
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Dubow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0973

    Addressing an issue of first impression, the appellate court concluded that defendant's lifetime registration requirement authorized by the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act did not constitute an illegal sentence as the legislature did not limit the authority of a court to impose registration requirements only within the maximum allowable term of incarceration. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.