NEXT
Sign in to follow

The Legal Intelligencer

EQT Prod. Co. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills, PICS Case No. 17-0867 (Pa. Commw. May 18, 2017) Leadbetter, S.J. (27 pages).

Trial court properly reversed the council's denial of applicants' conditional use application because applicants met the specific requirements of the ordinance and objectors' testimony was the kind of speculative evidence insufficient to constitute proof of detriments to health, safety and welfare exceeding those ordinarily to be expected from the proposed use. Affirmed and remanded.
4 minute read

Delaware Law Weekly

Del. Judiciary Responds to Attorney Concerns

The Delaware Supreme Court on Friday announced the judiciary's response to a 2016 report compiling feedback from more than 1,300 Delaware legal professionals, calling for better information-sharing and increased cooperation clarity among the state courts.
7 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ft. Pitt Lodge, No. 1, PICS Case No. 17-0861 (Pa. May 22, 2017) Mundy, J. (18 pages).

Municipality could not eliminate subject of collective bargaining through adoption of home rule charter provision where Act 111, which granted fire and police officials right to bargain conditions of employment and took supremacy over any municipal home rule charter. Order of the commonwealth court reversed.
4 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

Commonwealth v. Wanamaker, PICS Case No. 17-0404 (C.P. Carbon Dec. 21, 2016) Nanovic, P.J. (13 pages).

The court denied a defendant's motion for enforcement of a plea agreement where there the agreement was never filed with the court and there was no evidence that the district attorney's office acted in bad faith in withdrawing the plea offer.
5 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

Waters v. Commonwealth of Penn. Dep't. of Trans., PICS Case No. 17-0530 (C.P. Lehigh Feb. 28, 2017) Reichley, .J. (11 pages).

The court denied an appeal of a driver's license suspension where she engaged in conduct that constituted a refusal of chemical testing. The court reinstated the license suspension.
3 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

Commonwealth v. Dennis, PICS Case No. 17-0863 (Pa. Super. May 22, 2017) Bowes, J. (19 pages).

Trial court lacked statutory authority to revoke criminal defendant's bond and commit defendant to jail for nonpayment of the preliminary fee for a court-ordered drug and alcohol assessment. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
3 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

In re M.Z.T.M.W., PICS Case No. 17-0870 (Pa. Super. May 17, 2017) Stabile, J. (8 pages).

Mother failed to preserve any of her claims for review in her challenge to the orphans' court's termination of her parental rights to her twin children because she failed to develop any argument in her brief with respect to §§2511(a)(2) and(5) and her failure to include a challenge to §2511(b) in her statement of questions involved and concise statement waived that issue. Decree affirmed.
2 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

Fagnilli v. Fagnilli, PICS Case No. 17-0832 (C.P. Lawrence Feb. 14, 2017) Hodge, J. (20 pages).

Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, the court refused to disturb its finding that the parties' adult daughter, who was unjustly enriched by a mortgage fraudulently obtained by wife on the parties' marital property, was an indispensable party to this divorce proceeding. The court denied wife's exceptions in part.
6 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

Commonwealth v. Luketic, PICS Case No. 17-0865 (Pa. Super. May 16, 2017) Solano, J. (31 pages).

Trial court erred in imposing sentence it had arrived at solely based on the facts of the crime without taking evidence of the circumstances of the sentenced defendant. Judgment of sentence vacated, case remanded for resentencing.
3 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amaya, PICS Case No. 17-0866 (Pa. Super. May 19, 2017) Lazarus, J. (7 pages).

Appellant waived his challenge to his guilty plea based on the lack of information on the immigration consequences of the plea in the colloquy because he failed to raise the issue during his plea colloquy or to file a post-sentence motion seeking to withdraw his plea and never raised the issue until his Rule 1925(b) statement. Affirmed.
3 minute read

More from ALM

More from ALM

Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.

Resources

  • Technology to Make E-Discovery Smarter, Not Harder

    Brought to you by Nuix

    Download Now

  • Does Generative AI Have the Power to Transform Legal Services?

    Brought to you by HaystackID

    Download Now

  • International Export and Trade Assistance State Law Survey

    Brought to you by LexisNexis®

    Download Now

  • How This Personal Injury Firm Reduced Client Intake Time by 80%

    Brought to you by PracticePanther

    Download Now