• Commonwealth v. Rizor

    Publication Date: 2023-12-18
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 32 WAP 2022

    Post Conviction Relief Act petition failed where defendant admitted she would have only accepted a plea offer if she had no chance of acquittal, which precluded her from establishing prejudice from trial counsel's alleged deficient advice. Order of the superior court vacated and remanded.

  • Zilka v. Tax Review Bd. City of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2023-12-18
    Practice Area: Tax
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20 EAP 2022

    Because state and local taxes could not be aggregated for purposes of a dormant Commerce Clause analysis, Philadelphia's tax scheme was constitutional where it afforded a credit for local taxes paid by resident who worked in another state, as the city was not obligated to also credit state income taxes paid to the other state. Order of the commonwealth court affirmed.

  • DiNardo v. Kohler

    Publication Date: 2023-12-11
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22 EAP 2022

    No felony conviction recovery rule barred mental health patient from seeking indemnification and damages arising from the patient's intentional murders. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • Hangey v. Husqvarna Prof'l Prod., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-12-11
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Dougherty
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 14 EAP 2022

    Trial court erred in concluding corporation did not regularly conduct business in a venue based solely on the percentage of the corporation's national sales that occurred in the venue, where corporation regularly distributed products through authorized dealers located in the venue. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • Hawbaker v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dep't of Transp.

    Publication Date: 2023-12-11
    Practice Area: Administrative Law
    Industry: Construction | State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Brobson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20 MAP 2022

    Commonwealth court erred in exercising equitable jurisdiction over contractor's challenge to debarment proceedings where state agency's administrative procedures would afford opportunity for contractor to raise its due process and factual challenges, Order of the commonwealth court reversed and remanded.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Library of Pennsylvania Family Law Forms, Fourth Edition

    Authors: Joseph S. Britton

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Weeden

    Publication Date: 2023-12-04
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19 WAP 2022

    Summary document created by ShotSpotter testimony was nontestimonial in nature because its primary purpose was to assist law enforcement with responding to a potential ongoing emergency rather than to document past events for criminal prosecution, and thus the summary's admission did not violate defendant's Confrontation Clause rights. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Conforti

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 794 CAP

    Commonwealth committed Brady violation by failing to disclose mental health records in its possession relating to defendant's co-defendant, who provided key testimony at defendant's trial, where the records were relevant as they diagnosed co-defendant with sociopathic tendencies and thus could have been used to damage the credibility and reliability of his testimony. Order of the PCRA court affirmed.

  • J.C.D. v. A.L.R.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-06
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Brobson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 13 MAP 2023

    Parents could not immediately appeal trial court order determining that grandparents had standing to pursue partial custody of parents' children where parents' fundamental rights would not be irreparably harmed or lost in the absence of immediate appellate review since appellate courts could review the issue of standing on appeal from a final custody order. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • Weeks v. Dep't of Human Serv.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-16
    Practice Area: Legislation
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22 EAP 2021

    Act 12 of 2019 did not violate the legislative enactment requirements under Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution where the bill's provisions were related to the single subject of benefits for low-income individuals and the bill's initial purpose of eliminating the commonwealth's cash assistance program in favor of health-related benefits. Order of the commonwealth court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. McGee

    Publication Date: 2023-10-16
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 17 WAP 2022

    Appellant appealed the Superior Court's holding that a trial court lacked jurisdiction to correct a patent and obvious error in a sentencing order where the defendant's request for correction fell outside the time limits of the Post Conviction Relief Act. The court held that it was unnecessary to reach that issue where there was no patent and obvious sentencing error in the first instance.