Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
On the bench with
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Harrison, S.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-04-30
This case concerned whether a trial court properly denied the Commonwealth's motion to nolle prosequi charges of negligent simple assault against former police officer Stuart Harrison, who was accused of shooting a suspect during an arrest at a bank after a Taser malfunctioned. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's order upholding the denial. The Court held that the trial court had correctly applied the legal standard from Commonwealth v. Reinhart for reviewing such motions. It further found that the Commonwealth's stated reasons for seeking to drop the charges were neither valid nor reasonable, as other available witnesses could establish the facts needed to meet the prosecution's burden at trial.
criminal lawprocedure
Commonwealth v. Lee, D., Aplt.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-03-26
This case concerned whether Pennsylvania's mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a conviction of second-degree murder (felony murder) violates the Eighth Amendment or the state constitution's prohibition on cruel punishments. The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and other charges after participating in a home invasion robbery during which his co-defendant shot and killed the victim. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the mandatory LWOP sentence, imposed without any individualized assessment of the defendant's culpability, violates Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court reversed the Superior Court's order, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing while staying the mandate for 120 days to allow the legislature time to respond.
criminal law
Erie Insurance Co. v. Heater, D. (WCAB); Apl. of: Heater
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-03-26
The case involved David Heater, the sole owner and employee of a general contracting business, who suffered a work-related neck injury in 2015 and sought workers' compensation benefits under a policy issued by Erie Insurance. Erie denied the claim, asserting among other things that Heater failed to provide timely notice of the injury to the insurer within 120 days as required by Section 311 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that Section 311 does not require a sole proprietor to notify his insurer within 120 days to preserve eligibility for benefits, because the statutory definition of “employer” for notice purposes does not encompass the insurer. The Court reversed the Commonwealth Court’s contrary ruling and remanded the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board.
labor & employment
Bredbenner v. Hall; Apl of: Lebanon Co Dom Rel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-03-26
This case concerns a child support enforcement action in which the Lebanon County Domestic Relations Office sought civil contempt sanctions against Michael Hall for unpaid arrearages, resulting in a trial court order imposing 100 days' imprisonment with a $2,000 purge condition. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, through the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court, affirmed the Superior Court's decision to vacate the imprisonment order. The core reasoning, as explained in the concurring opinion, is that under Barrett v. Barrett and Pa.R.C.P. 1910.25(b), imprisonment for civil contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the contemnor's present ability to pay the purge amount; here the record showed insufficient evidence of Hall's ability to pay, as he testified to unemployment and reliance on family support without rebuttal, and the trial court did not compel financial disclosures. The concurrence further details a burden-shifting framework in which the contemnor has an initial burden of production regarding inability to pay, after which the petitioning party bears the burden of persuasion, while emphasizing that the ultimate standard remains proof beyond a reasonable doubt to avoid punitive rather than coercive sanctions.
family lawcriminal lawcivil rightsprocedure
In Re: M.L.R.; Apl of: E.L.R., Mother and M.L.R.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-02-18
This case involved a mother who petitioned to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of the father to their minor child under Pennsylvania's Adoption Act, without any plan for the child to be adopted by another person. The trial court granted the termination, but the Superior Court reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The Court held that the mother's petition was not valid under the Act because Section 2512 requires that a petitioning parent generally must show an anticipated adoption and agree to relinquish their own parental rights, and the "cause shown" exception in Section 2901 applies only in the context of a contemplated adoption. The opinion reviewed the statutory provisions on termination grounds, petition requirements, and limited exceptions such as those for children conceived through rape or incest, noting that the legislature had not altered the adoption-contemplation rule despite prior judicial interpretations. The Court concluded that the trial court erred in terminating the father's rights absent compliance with these requirements.
family law
Commonwealth v. Walker, D., Aplt.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2026-01-28
This case concerned Derrick Walker's convictions for raping three separate victims, with the appeals raising questions about the admissibility of evidence of the other assaults under the common plan, scheme, or design exception to the bar on propensity evidence, as well as whether rape kit reports could be introduced without testimony from the examining nurses. The majority held that the other offenses were not admissible because they were neither signature crimes nor linked to a common goal, and that the reports were testimonial and thus violated confrontation rights, requiring a new trial. The dissent disagreed on both points, contending that the exception should allow the evidence and that the reports were primarily medical records created for treatment rather than prosecution, making them nontestimonial. The reasoning centered on the precise standards for the common plan exception and the primary purpose test for determining if statements are testimonial under the Confrontation Clause.
criminal lawprocedure