Filter This View

  • Commonwealth v. Brothers

    Publication Date: 2022-08-22
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0875

    Court granted criminal defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of a vehicle. The court noted that although the officer conducting the search had probable cause to search the vehicle for drug paraphernalia, no exigent circumstances existed because the occupants had exited the vehicle and were not able to destroy any potential evidence at the time of the search. Therefore, because the warrantless search was not predicated on both probable cause and exigent circumstances, the search violated defendant

  • K.R.R. v. M.M.R.

    Publication Date: 2021-06-21
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0566

    The court awarded physical custody of a minor child to a third party over the objection of the natural parents

  • K.R.R. v. M.MR.

    Publication Date: 2020-03-30
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0249

    Through her dual roles as foster care parent and concerned and involved relative to the minor child, plaintiff clearly and convincingly demonstrated a sustained, substantial and sincere interest in the child sufficient to establish in loco parentis standing. The trial court recommended affirmance.

  • In the Interest of: K.M.R.

    Publication Date: 2019-06-10
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0589

    There is no statutory requirement or state precedent requiring that the testimony or preference of a child be placed on the record as an integral part of a termination proceeding and thus no support for parents' argument that their children were withheld from the court and barred from testifying in violation of the Child Protective Services Laws. The trial court recommended affirmance.

  • In the Interest of K.M.R. & J.L.A.

    Publication Date: 2019-04-01
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0311

    Clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of parental rights in this case, and the court did not err in failing to require the children to be present at the involuntary termination hearings.

  • In the Interest of K.M.R. & J.L.A.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-04
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Family Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1410

    In this juvenile dependency proceeding, the court did not commit any error with regard to the children's testimony, and mother failed to show she met the requirements of the reunification plan.