Home > Legal Library > Advanced Search > Search Results









Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected



Search Results (4)

  
 

Sort by:
Sponsored Results

HTMLOccupant In a Fleeing Vehicle Is Not an Innocent Bystander...Or Is He?
Kimberly A. Boyer-Cohen; Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
March 14, 2014, previously published on March 1, 2014
Under the law in Pennsylvania, police officers owe no duty of care to the driver of a fleeing vehicle, Lindstrom v. City of Corry, 763 A.2d 394 (Pa. 2000), but they do owe a duty of care to innocent third parties, Jones v. Chieffo, 700 A.2d 417 (Pa. 1997), who are bystanders unconnected with the...

 

HTMLNavigating the 1925(b) Minefield of Waiver - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Attempt to 'Clarify the Confusion and Quell the Consternation'
Kimberly Boyer-Cohen; Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin;
Legal Alert/Article
February 13, 2009, previously published on June 2008
The myriad decisions of the intermediate appellate courts and trial courts regarding waiver under Rule 1925(b) have been characterized as causing "much consternation in the courts of this commonwealth."

 

HTMLA Taint of Evidence Claim of Error -- It "Taint" So Effective in Civil Cases
Kimberly Boyer-Cohen; Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin;
Legal Alert/Article
May 5, 2003, previously published by Defense Digest on December 2002
On appeal, the party on the losing end of a verdict may assert a "taint of evidence" claim of error -- which is essentially an argument that the verdict was tainted by the admission of prejudicial evidence or remarks. This is especially true in personal injury actions where juries may be...

 

HTMLFailure to Anticipate Potential Mail Delays May Result in a Party's Loss of Rights
Kimberly Boyer-Cohen; Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin;
Legal Alert/Article
May 5, 2003, previously published by Defense Digest on March 2002
In a recently decided case (2001), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a party's failure to anticipate potential delays in the mail prohibited that party from appealing an arbitration award.