Marshall Dennehey Is Happy To Celebrate Our Recent Appellate Victories, DD 06/07
Defense Digest
Marshall Dennehey Is Happy To Celebrate Our Recent Appellate Victories
Chuck Craven (Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in having the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit grant his client's motion for summary disposition under Local Rule 27.4 and Internal Operating Procedure 10.6, without briefing and oral argument. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed as time barred vis-a-vis the client, and as barred by judicial immunity vis-a-vis the judicial defendants. The court also held that summary disposition was proper because no substantial question was presented by this appeal. Catanzaro v. Jones, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8067 (3d Cir., April 5, 2007).
Kim Boyer-Cohen (Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in having the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirm the summary judgment granted to the defendant-driver on the basis that the plaintiff-navigator had assumed the risk of injury or death inherent in the ClubRally automobile race in which they were participating. Kovacs v. Listopad, 66 MDA 2006 (Pa. Super., January 5, 2007).
Kim Boyer-Cohen (Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in having the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff's professional negligence claims on the basis that the advice proffered by the accountant could not be deemed the legal cause of the plaintiff's loss. Pyle v. Colledge, 349 MDA 2006 (Pa. Super., March 19, 2007).
Audrey Copeland (King of Prussia, PA) successfully obtained the Pennsylvania Superior Court's affirmance a of directed verdict for the defendant hospital in a malicious prosecution case, which had been tried by Steve Day (King of Prussia, PA). The Superior Court held that the plaintiff did not satisfy the required elements of a malicious prosecution claim. In addition, the Superior Court was persuaded to hold that the defendant did not "institute proceedings" against the plaintiff, despite the trial court's contrary ruling that determination of whether defendant "instituted" charges was a jury issue. The Superior Court also affirmed the trial court's holding that the plaintiff failed to raise any evidentiary or voir dire errors requiring a new trial. Abraham v. Crozer Chester Medical Center., 1608 EDA 2006 (Pa. Super., April 11, 2007).
John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in having the Pennsylvania Superior Court dismiss plaintiff's appeal on the basis that, while plaintiff purported to appeal from the denial of a motion for protective order, the appeal actually challenged an underlying Order compelling plaintiff to appear without counsel for an independent medical exam. Since plaintiff's appeal was filed more than 30 days after the underlying Order was entered, it was untimely, even if the appeal would otherwise have been a proper collateral Order appeal. Roberts v. DeLossantos et al., 751 EDA 2006 (Pa. Super., April 7, 2007).
John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in having the Pennsylvania Superior Court dismiss plaintiff's appeal on the highly unusual basis that plaintiff filed his appellate brief six days late. In dismissing the appeal without warning or further notice, the Superior Court cited plaintiff's history of dilatory and prejudicial conduct. Schneller v. Main Line Hospitals, 1126 EDA 2006 (Pa. Super., January 25, 2007).
Michael Panichelli (Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in having the Superior Court grant re-argument en banc in a case where a three-judge panel of the Court had held the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to identify asbestos-containing brake shoes to which her late husband was exposed as the defendant's products, even though the evidence consisted of little more than a showing that the brake shoes were red and the defendant distributed brake shoes that were red. Tarzia v. American Standard, 3053 EDA 2005 (March 2007).
