Filter This View

  • In the Interest of: K.T.

    Publication Date: 2023-07-10
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Dougherty
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 37 WAP 2022

    Trial courts were to consider child's need for permanency and stability equally and should also consider intangibles such as the parent-child bond, including whether the bond was necessary and beneficial for a child and whether its severance would cause extreme, irreparable harm to a child. Order of the superior court vacated, case remanded.

  • K.N.B. v. M.D.

    Publication Date: 2021-10-18
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-1208

    Appellant appealed the grant of a sexual violence protective order and court found petitions under the Protection of Victims of Sexual Violence or Intimidation Act were subject to the six-year catch-all statute of limitations and the continued risk of harm element did not require trial court to evaluate the reasonableness of a plaintiff's mental and emotional reactions. Affirmed.

  • In re: Estate of W. McAleer

    Publication Date: 2021-04-19
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0422

    The high court split on whether the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine protect communications between a trustee and counsel from discovery by beneficiaries when the communications arose in the context of adversarial proceedings between those parties, but found that disclosure would nevertheless result from the competing positions set forth by a majority of justices. The high court affirmed the lower court's alternative ruling.

  • In re Adoption of K.M.G.

    Publication Date: 2020-11-23
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-1283

    Superior court properly held that appellate court should engage in limited sua sponte review where a GAL/counsel was appointed to represent both a child's legal and best interests to determine whether orphans' court determined those interests did not conflict. Affirmed.

  • August 27, 2020 | The Legal Intelligencer

    Pa. Supreme Court Split on $21M Bad-Faith Verdict Against Nationwide

    A case that resulted in a twice-vacated $21 million bad-faith verdict has left the Pennsylvania Supreme Court evenly split on whether that award should be reinstated.

    1 minute read

  • June 11, 2020 | Insurance Coverage Law Center

    Ladd v. Real Estate Comm'n

    In Ladd v. Real Estate Commission, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently determined whether the requirements of a real estate "broker" under Pennsylvania's Real State Licensing and Registration Act (RELRA) should be deemed unconstitutional as applied to a short-term vacation property manager.

    1 minute read