Filter This View

  • Commonwealth v. Gould

    Publication Date: 2018-05-29
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge McLaughlin
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0628

    Search by parole agent valid where agent personally observed and had third-party information providing reasonable suspicion defendant possessed contraband or evidence of parole violation, and where agent's search was intended to uncover parole violations rather than investigate penal code violations. Judgement of sentence affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Manivannan

    Publication Date: 2018-05-22
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ransom
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0581

    Addressing an issue of first impression, the court found the evidence insufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for unlawful use of a computer because lay witnesses were not competent to draw conclusions from information in the victim's email account setting that depicted multiple instances of disparate Internet Protocol addresses accessing her account from approximate geographic locations. The appellate court reversed defendant's judgment of sentence and remanded for a new trial.

  • Commonwealth v. Byrd

    Publication Date: 2018-05-15
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0564

    The trial court erred in holding that the commonwealth was required to prove defendant's consent to the recording of his jailhouse conversations under the mutual consent exception to the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act since the exception permits interception when a defendant knew or should have known that his conversations were recorded. The appellate court reversed and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Thran

    Publication Date: 2018-05-15
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0575

    The trial court correctly refused to suppress the evidence in motorcyclists DUI because the phone tip the police received provided ample suspicion of impaired driving and the location where the officer found the motorcycle and its description and that of the driver corroborated the information given in the phone tip. Affirmed.

  • City of Philadelphia v. Sessions

    Publication Date: 2018-05-08
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Baylson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0533

    Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the court was permitted to take judicial notice of executive orders issued by U.S President Donald Trump and public statements by both President Trump and the U.S. Attorney regarding their efforts to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities such as the City of Philadelphia. The court rendered an evidentiary ruling, taking judicial notice of the proffered statements.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Community Association Litigation: Homeowners’ Associations and Condominiums 2019

    Authors: Ron M. Campbell

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Bowers

    Publication Date: 2018-05-01
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0417

    In this case of first impression, the appellate court held that while an underlying criminal action remains pending, an appeal from an order deciding a commonwealth forfeiture petition is interlocutory and unappealable if the forfeiture petition relates in any way to the criminal prosecution. The appellate court squashed defendants appeal.

  • Reginelli v. Boggs

    Publication Date: 2018-04-10
    Practice Area: Evidence | Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0430

    PRPA evidentiary privilege did not apply where entity was not a professional health care provider, and where performance review was not conducted by hospitals established peer review committee. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Trahey

    Publication Date: 2018-04-10
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0420

    Delay in responding and investigating motor vehicle accident, lack of manpower to obtain warrant, and natural dissipation of alcohol from bloodstream combined to create exigent circumstances supporting a warrantless blood draw. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Giles

    Publication Date: 2018-04-03
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Lazarus
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0384

    The trial court did not err in allowing the commonwealth to admit a video of the victims forensic interview as a prior consistent statement where the victim was subjected to extensive cross-examination to discredit her recollection and the interview was admitted to corroborate her impeached testimony. The appellate court affirmed a trial court order denying defendant relief.

  • Commonwealth v. Mangel

    Publication Date: 2018-04-03
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Musmanno
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0386

    Commonwealths motion to introduce Facebook messages and posts allegedly made by defendant correctly denied where the commonwealth failed to present evidence sufficiently corroborating defendant as the owner of the account and the sender of the messages at issue. Order of the trial court affirmed.