On June 18, 2015, in REED ET AL. v. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZONA, ET AL. (CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT), No. 13–502, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision holding that a Sign Code’s provisions are content-based regulations of speech that do not survive strict scrutiny. Click […]
Is a sentence imposed pursuant to a statute that facially violates the Constitution of the United States an illegal, void sentence that must be vacated?
When a sentencing statute is facially invalid under the Constitution of the United States, any sentence imposed pursuant to that statute is void and illegal and must be vacated. A conviction under a facially unconstitutional statute is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment. Ex parte […]
Magisterial District Courts in Pennsylvania Do Not Have Jurisdiction to Hear Civil Actions Brought in Equity
Arguably, Magisterial district courts in Pennsylvania do not have jurisdiction to hear civil actions brought in Equity. Pa. R. C. P. M. D. J. 301(A) (includes assumpsit and trespass actions, but not actions in equity); “Note” to Pa. R. C. P. M. D. J. 301(A) (does not include equity jurisdiction); Id. (“Civil action includes actions formerly […]
Sentencing Law and Policy: US Sentencing Commission votes to amend fraud guidelines (but not really “fix” that much)
Sentencing Law and Policy: US Sentencing Commission votes to amend fraud guidelines (but not really “fix” that much).
EisnerAmper: “Valuation of a Closely Held Business in Divorce” (April 06, 2015) by Hubert Klein and Michael Yanoff. See, EisnerAmper.
EisnerAmper: FASB Proposes Deferral of New Revenue Standard ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers
EisnerAmper: “FASB Proposes Deferral of New Revenue Standard ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers” (April 08, 2015) by Michael McMurtry, CPA. See, EisnerAmper
Joseph et al v. Scranton Times L.P. et al, 2014 Pa. Super. 49 (2014)(Overview: held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion for a new trial because (1) it failed to consider Appellants’ evidence of emotional distress, mental anguish, and personal humiliation; (2) it applied the incorrect standard of proof in […]
NOTE: See, United States v. Hipolito, 3:13-cv-338 (M.D. Pa.)(Robert D. Mariani, United States District Judge)(Opinion filed 3/6/2015, Doc. 37, denying IRS motion for summary judgment in foreclosure action against tenancy by the entireties real property owned in Pennsylvania). March 6 2015 Opinion Denying IRS Summary Judgment The failure to pay federal taxes after demand empowers […]
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, prohibits, among other things, computer crime involving the knowing, unauthorized transmission of code to a “protected” computer which intentionally causes “damage.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i). A violation of the CFAA exposes one to both civil and criminal liability. Dresser-Rand Co. v. Jones, 957 F. Supp. […]
News & Developments | Commercial & Business Litigation | ABA Section of Litigation: D.C. Circuit Rejects “But For” Standard in Determining Privilege in Internal Investigations
News & Developments | Commercial & Business Litigation | ABA Section of Litigation. September 30, 2014 D.C. Circuit Rejects “But For” Standard in Determining Privilege in Internal Investigations (by Gregory A. Blue, Dilworth Paxson LLP, New York, New York)