Shorter Briefs, Fewer Waiver Traps
Under two new proposals to amend Pennsylvania’s Rules of Appellate Procedure lawyers will be writing shorter briefs with less risk of waiver. Briefs would be
Kevin McKeon
April 27, 2012
Under two new proposals to amend Pennsylvania’s Rules of Appellate Procedure lawyers will be writing shorter briefs with less risk of waiver. Briefs would be
KEVIN J. McKEON APPOINTED TO PA. APPELLATE COURT PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE Kevin J. McKeon, partner in Hawke McKeon & Sniscak, LLP of Harrisburg, PA, was
Effective in 2011 unreported opinions of Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court may be cited as persuasive authority, though not as binding precedent. The procedural change follows years
Orders granting new trials in civil and certain criminal proceedings are immediately appealable pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 311 (a)(6), but is an order granting a
Although trial courts and agencies often take a position on whether an order they have entered is final for purposes of appeal, it is essential
Pennsylvania’s appellate rules permit a reply brief but limit the scope to “matters raised by appellee’s brief and not previously addressed in appellant’s brief.” Pa.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., __Pa. __, 6 A.3d 1002 (2010) (plurality opinion) serves notice that a majority
Revisiting the Arsenal Coal exception to the general rule that the exhaustion doctrine bars a challenge to administrative agency regulations until after the challenger is
Finding that an asbestos plaintiff defending a motion for summary judgment has standing to facially challenge the constitutionality of a liability-capping statute on dormant Commerce
Did you know that Pennsylvania appellate courts may find an issue waived where a document relevant to the issue is omitted from the original record
HMS Legal Melissa Chapaska had a substantive win in New Jersey for one of CLS’s cannabis clients. The case involves a CLS cannabis client’s efforts to hold a construction contractor accountable for negligence and fraud in the construction of a cannabis facility. Following Melissa’s successful oral argument on the merits of these claims, the judge denied the construction company’s attempts to dismiss these claims. The case will proceed to adjudicate whether the construction company can be held liable for damages resulting from the claims alleged.