США (темы в платном доступе). Спор между законодательной и исполнительной властью штата Пенсильвания, с одной стороны, и Верховным судом штата с, с другой, по поводу табачных фондов. Верховный суд штата решает вопрос о том, имеет ли право лицо, которое находится под домашним арестом, на компенсацию в связи с тем, что оно лишено возможности исполнять свои трудовые обязанности. Верховный суд штата на прошлой неделе выслушал аргументы юридической компании, с одной стороны, и дисциплинарной комиссии, с другой, по поводу ответственности юридической компании за оказание юридических услуг (по распоряжению недвижимым имуществом в пользу пожилых граждан) не адвокатами. Должен ли результат теста полиции на алкоголь (наркотические средства) в отношении водителей, в делах о вождении в нетрезвом состоянии, сопровождаться заключением эксперта. Другие материалы.

HEADLINES

• High Court Considers Fate of Diverted Tobacco Funds • Justices Ponder Eligibility for Benefits During House Arrest • Nonlawyer Work on Estate Planning Could Mean Disbarment • Justices Hear Debate Over Scientific Basis of DUI Field Test • Judge Allows Explanation of UIM in Jury Instructions • The Proposed Recordkeeping Rule Changes are Overly Harsh • In 2014, Pa. Supreme Court Splits, Vacancies Left Law Uncertain • A School District's Liability for Teacher-Student Relationships • Commonwealth v. Williams, PICS Case No. 14-1808 (C.P. Berks Nov. 6, 2014) Yatron, J. (4 pages). • Superior Court Denies New Trial Over Anti-Gay Email

High Court Considers Fate of Diverted Tobacco Funds

Lawyers from Pennsylvania's executive and legislative branches argued in front of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last week over whether legislation redirecting more than $200 million in tobacco settlement funds was constitutionally enacted. READ MORE »

Justices Ponder Eligibility for Benefits During House Arrest

Following arguments last Tuesday in Harrisburg in Chamberlain v. UCBR, the state Supreme Court is tasked with deciding whether a person under house arrest can be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. READ MORE »

Nonlawyer Work on Estate Planning Could Mean Disbarment

The state Supreme Court last Tuesday heard arguments from Barry O. Bohmueller and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel over the appropriate punishment for Bohmueller following his participation in an estate-planning company that had nonlawyers drafting trusts for

. READ MORE »

Justices Hear Debate Over Scientific Basis of DUI Field Test

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments last week over whether horizontal gaze nystagmus test results may be admitted into evidence in DUI cases without accompanying expert testimony about its scientific validity. READ MORE »

Judge Allows Explanation of UIM in Jury Instructions

In an underinsured motorist case, a Lackawanna County judge has decided that a jury should be told the plaintiff had UIM coverage, but should not know the insurer has already paid first-party benefits.READ MORE »

The Proposed Recordkeeping Rule Changes are Overly Harsh

What changes are proposed to the Rules of Professional Conduct concerning maintenance of financial records and other matters?READ MORE »

In 2014, Pa. Supreme Court Splits, Vacancies Left Law Uncertain

As another year of Pennsylvania jurisprudence comes to an end, a look back reveals a number of the same issues and trends that have dominated the headlines in recent years. The more things change, the more they remain the same. READ MORE »

A School District's Liability for Teacher-Student Relationships

Title IX does not purport to establish the minimum age at which a minor is deemed to be capable of consenting to sexual activities with an older individual. Instead, Title IX prohibits certain forms of sex-based discrimination in the educational context. READ MORE »

Commonwealth v. Williams, PICS Case No. 14-1808 (C.P. Berks Nov. 6, 2014) Yatron, J. (4 pages).

Search and Seizure • Self-Incrimination • Motor Vehicles · Controlled Dangerous Substances READ MORE »

Superior Court Denies New Trial Over Anti-Gay Email

A trial court's decision to exclude from evidence an email attachment containing anti-gay material that a defendant did not read or open was not a sufficient basis to grant a new trial for the plaintiff, the state Superior Court has said. READ MORE »

Email Management Area Please do not reply to the address you received this email from. Manage your email communications below. Why you received this email message: You are subscribed to the The Legal Intelligencer PA Law Weekly as ivan_of@mail.ru. You may be subscribed to multiple publications as part of your relationship with us. To stop receiving the The Legal Intelligencer PA Law Weekly (unsubscribe) or to update your email marketing preferences, please click here. On this page, please update your subscription choices to this publication, and any others you may receive. You may also change your opt-in of email marketing promotions from ALM. It may take up to 10 days for your changes to take effect. How to contact us should you have questions: The Legal Intelligencer® 1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 1750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Customer Service Phone: 1-877-256-2472

About ALM | Customer Support | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions    © 2014 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.