• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Daniel E. Cummins

If You Sign A Waiver To Play Sports, Have You Agreed To Assume The Risk If You Get Hurt?

06 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Litigation, Recent Links and Articles, Sports Law, Summary judgment, Torts

≈ Comments Off on If You Sign A Waiver To Play Sports, Have You Agreed To Assume The Risk If You Get Hurt?

Tags

Assumption of the Risk, Daniel E. Cummins, Football, Tort, TORT TALK, Waiver

Judge Gibbons Grants Summary Judgment Based on Waiver Form and Assumption of Risk in Football Injury Case, by Daniel E. Cummins, Tort Talk

http://www.torttalk.com/2016/02/judge-gibbons-grants-summary-judgment.html

With the Super Bowl on the horizon comes the case of first impression of Feleccia v. Lackawanna Coll., No. 12-CV-1960, 2016 WL 409711 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 2, 2016 Gibbons, J.), in which Judge James A. Gibbons of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas was faced with the issue whether two junior college students who were injured at a preseason football practice were barred from recovering against the college because both signed waivers of liability prior to their injuries. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Service of Process Proper on Corporate Franchisee, Not Local Franchisee.

30 Tuesday Jun 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Civil Procedure, Service of Process

≈ Comments Off on Service of Process Proper on Corporate Franchisee, Not Local Franchisee.

Tags

Corporate Franchisor, Daniel E. Cummins, Service of Process, TORT TALK Blog

Where Corporate Franchisor is Named Defendant, Service of Process on Local Franchisee is Insufficient, by Daniel E. Cummins, Tort Talk Blog

http://www.torttalk.com/2015/06/where-corporate-franchisor-is-named.html

In the case of  Trexler vs McDonald’s Corporation, 2015 Pa. Super. 131, 903 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super. June 3, 2015 Ford Elliott, P.J.E.,  Shogan, J., Stabile, J.)(Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently clarified that, where the named Defendant in a lawsuit is the Corporate Franchisor, . . . for service of a Complaint as original process to be proper, the Complaint must be served upon that Corporate Franchisor Defendant, and not the individual franchisee who may own the local establishment. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

How Juror With Ties To Defendants’ Law Firm Stayed On The Jury.

10 Wednesday Jun 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Implied Bias, Jury Selection, Peremptory Challenges, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on How Juror With Ties To Defendants’ Law Firm Stayed On The Jury.

Tags

Conflict of Interest, Daniel E. Cummins, Juror, Jury Selection, TortTalk Blog, Voir Dire

Motion to Strike Potential Juror Represented by Law Firm Involved Denied, by Daniel E. Cummins, TortTalk Blog

(Source for Mr. Cummins post: “Panel Upholds Decision Not to Strike Juror With Ties to Firm” by P.J. D’Annunzio of The Legal Intelligencer (June 3, 2015).)

http://www.torttalk.com/2015/06/motion-to-strike-potential-juror.html

In the non-precedential Pennsylvania Superior Court case of DeFrancesco v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, No. 742 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. May 26, 2015 Panella, Olson, Fitzgerald, J.J.) (slip op. by Fitzgerald, J.), the appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision not to strike a juror from a medical malpractice case during voir dire even though the juror was a client of the same firm representing defendants in the case. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Defendant in Motor Vehicle Accident Files Motion In Limine to Exclude BAC Evidence – Nice Try.

18 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Evidence, Expert Witness Report, Expert Witnesses, Forensic Evidence, Litigation, Motion in Limine, Motions in Limine, Motor Vehicle

≈ Comments Off on Defendant in Motor Vehicle Accident Files Motion In Limine to Exclude BAC Evidence – Nice Try.

Tags

Autopsy Report, BAC Evidence, Daniel E. Cummins, Motion in Limine, Motor Vehicle Accident, TortTalk Blog

Admissibility of BAC Evidence Requires Proof of Intoxication, by Daniel E. Cummins, TortTalk Blog

http://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/admissibility-of-bac-evidence-requires.html

(Please contact Daniel Cummins at dancummins@comcast.net if you wish to review a copy of this opinion.)

In his recent February 9, 2015 Opinion in the case of Ritter v. Van Campen Motors, Inc., No. 12-00,379 (C.P. Lycoming Co. Feb. 9, 2015 Anderson, J.), Judge Dudley M. Anderson addressed Motions in Limine pertaining to DUI evidence filed by a Defendant in a motor vehicle accident case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a motor vehicle accident during which each party claimed that the other driver crossed the centerline resulting in the fatal accident. Accident reconstruction experts offered by each party came to opposite conclusions.

The Defendant filed a Motion In Limine to preclude evidence that the Defendant driver had a BAC of .257 at the time of the accident as confirmed by an autopsy report, testimony that the Defendant had been drinking prior to driving that day, and evidence that there was beer in the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the accident. The Defendant contended that the BAC evidence was inadmissible absent proof of intoxication. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

May Defense Counsel Ask Plaintiff Whether He Was Referred to Doctor?

21 Sunday Dec 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney-Client Privilege, Cross-Examination, Defense Counsel, Depositions, Direct Examination, Discovery, Interrogatories, Litigation, Making Objections, Negligence, Personal Injury, Plaintiff's Counsel, Privilege and Confidentiality, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on May Defense Counsel Ask Plaintiff Whether He Was Referred to Doctor?

Tags

Attorney-Client Privilege, Daniel E. Cummins, Pennsylvania, Personal Injury, TORT TALK Blog

“Did Your Attorney Refer You to that Doctor?” by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK Blog

http://tinyurl.com/phfds4w

In a recent Delaware County Court of Common Pleas decision in the case of English v. Stepchin, No. CP-23-CV-786-2014, 101 Del. 424 (C.P. Del. Co. Nov. 12, 2014 Kenney, P.J.), President Judge Chad F. Kenney upheld a defense attorney’s right to inquire of a personal injury plaintiff whether or not plaintiff’s counsel had referred the plaintiff to her treating physician.

This issue came before the court on a Motion for a Re-Deposition of the plaintiff by defense counsel.

At the original deposition, plaintiff’s counsel objected to the defense counsel’s question to the plaintiff as to whether or not plaintiff’s counsel had referred the plaintiff to her treating physicans. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that such discovery was barred by the attorney-client privilege.
In his Opinion issued on the matter, President Judge Kenney held that, ‘whether counsel referred Plaintiff to her treating physicians does not constitute legal assistance so as to justify properly invoking the attorney-client privilege.’ More specifically, the court found that whether an attorney referred his client to a medical provider for treatment cannot be considered to have been a communication from an attorney to his or her client associated with the rendering of a legal opinion or the provision of legal services so as to invoke the applicability of the attorney-client privilege.

President Judge Kenney also stated that any asserted privilege ‘failed to outweigh the interest of the accessibility of material evidence to further the truth-determining process’ at a trial of a personal injury matter.

The Court granted Defendant’s Motion and ordered a 2nd deposition limited to the issue of who referred Plaintiff to her treating physicians.

Anyone wishing to review this decision, may click this LINK.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Casino Valet Service Not Liable For Returning Car To Intoxicated Driver.

08 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Damages, Litigation, Pennsylvania Superior Court, Summary judgment

≈ Comments Off on Casino Valet Service Not Liable For Returning Car To Intoxicated Driver.

Tags

Bailment, Daniel E. Cummins, Dram Shop, First Impression, Intoxicated Driver, Summary judgment, TORT TALK Blog, Valet Service

No Liability for Valet Service for Returning Car to Visibly Intoxicated Patron, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/07/no-liability-for-valet-service-for.html

In its recent decision in the case of Moranko v. Downs Racing LP, 2014 Pa.Super. 128 (Pa. Super. June 24, 2014 Panella, J., Mundy, J., and Platt, J.)(Op. by Panella, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that Pennsylvania law does not impose a duty upon a casino’s valet service to withhold the keys from a motorist if that person appears to be visibly intoxicated. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

A Lesson in Attorney-Client Privilege.

30 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney-Client Privilege, Confidentiality, Discovery, Legal Ethics, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on A Lesson in Attorney-Client Privilege.

Tags

Attorney-Client Privilege, Daniel E. Cummins, Dissolved Companies, Judge Wettick, Production of Documents, TORT TALK Blog

Judge Wettick: Attorney-Client Privilege Does Not Continue For Defunct Companies, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK Blog

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/03/judge-wettick-attorney-client-privilege.html

In his recent decision in the case of Red Vision Systems, Inc. et al. v. National Real Estate Information Services, L.P, et al., No. GD – 13 – 008572 (C.P. Allegh. Co. Feb. 26, 2014 Wettick, J.), Judge Wettick dealt with the novel issue of the application of the attorney-client privilege in the context of a request for the production of documents propounded upon a dissolved/non-operating company.

After a thorough review of the scope of the attorney-client privilege, Judge Wettick ultimately ruled that the privilege did not extend to corporations that were no longer in business.  Accordingly, a former in-house counsel for several defunct companies was ordered to turn over documents in discovery related to status of the companies’ assets. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Spread The Love.

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Management, Supervising Support Staff

≈ Comments Off on Spread The Love.

Tags

Daniel E. Cummins, Law Office Management, Management, Professionalism, Supervising Support Staff, TORT TALK

Spread A Little Love: Being Pleasant And Considerate Is Part Of Being A Professional, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/02/spread-little-love-article-for.html

Excellent relationship advice for all professionals. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Oh Happy Day for Pennsylvania Personal Injury Plaintiffs.

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Case of First Impression, Damages, Evidence, Jury Persuasion, Litigation, Pennsylvania Superior Court, Personal Injury, State Appellate Courts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Oh Happy Day for Pennsylvania Personal Injury Plaintiffs.

Tags

Appellate Law, Bodily Injury, Brian Butler, Damages, Daniel E. Cummins, Delay Damages Calculation, Future Medical Expenses, Pain and Suffering, Pennsylvania Superior Court, Personal Injury, Roth v. Ross and Erie Insurance Group, TORT TALK

Appellate Case of First Impression – Future Medical Expenses Are To Be Included in Delay Damages Calculation, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/02/appellate-case-of-first-impression.html

In a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled in Roth v. Ross and Erie Insurance Group, 977 MDA 2013, 2014 Pa. Super. 20 (Pa. Super. Feb. 7, 2014 Donohue, Ott, J.J., Platt, S.J.)(Opinion by Donohue, J.), that an award of future medical expenses in a personal injury case should be included in the calculation of delay damages due to the Plaintiff on a verdict. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Changes Expected This Year in Pennsylvania Civil Litigation.

05 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Construction, Expert Witness, Legal Technology, Litigation, Medical Malpractice, Motor Vehicle, Product Liability, Technology, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Changes Expected This Year in Pennsylvania Civil Litigation.

Tags

Civil Litigation, Construction Litigation, Daniel E. Cummins, Expert Witness Discovery, Legal Technology, Massachusetts Supreme Court, Medical Malpractice, Motor Vehicle, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Product Liability Litigation, TORT TALK

Changes Anticipated for Pa. Civil Litigation Jurisprudence in 2014, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK, republished from Pennsylvania Law Weekly

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/01/article-changes-anticipated-for-pa.html

Currently, there are a number of important civil litigation issues pending before the Pennsylvania appellate courts, the results of which could significantly impact the way litigators practice in the years ahead. Moreover, notable changes over the past year in Pennsylvania statutory law, as well as the Rules of Professional Responsibility, are expected to have a significant impact.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Thorough Analysis of Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work Doctrine.

25 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Thorough Analysis of Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work Doctrine.

Tags

Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Daniel E. Cummins, Discovery, Judge Mehalchick, TORT TALK

Federal Middle District Magistrate Judge Mehalchick Addresses Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work Product Doctrine in Discovery Dispute, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://tinyurl.com/kw7cdbl

The case before Judge Mehalchick, entitled Dempsey v. Bucknell University, No. 4:11-CV-1679 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 7, 2013 Mehalchick, M.J.), arose out of a breach of contract claim filed by a student against the university relative to student conduct hearings held.  At issue were certain documents withheld from discovery by the plaintiff in response to the defendant’s Rule 34 discovery requests on the grounds of the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Court Denies Facebook Discovery Requests by Both Parties.

23 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Evidence, Legal Technology, Personal Injury, Requests for Production, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Denies Facebook Discovery Requests by Both Parties.

Tags

Daniel E. Cummins, Discovery, Facebook, Judge Wettick, Personal Injury, Personal injury lawyer, Traffic collision

Facebook logo Español: Logotipo de Facebook Fr...

Judge Wettick Rules on Facebook Discovery Issues, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://tinyurl.com/c8p3snr

After providing a detailed review of the issue over a 22 paged Opinion, which includes a background on Facebook itself and a review of decisions from both within Pennsylvania and from outside jurisdictions, Judge Wettick ruled that both the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s motions to compel access to the other’s Facebook pages would be denied in this motor vehicle accident litigation.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 455 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: