District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania — appointed by Jimmy Carter
United States v. Murphy
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2005-11-21 · cited 5×
In United States v. Murphy, the defendant was charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) following a traffic stop on August 28, 2004, during which officers seized a firearm, cash, and marijuana from his person. The defendant moved to suppress all physical evidence and statements obtained from the stop, arguing that officers lacked probable cause to initiate it based on an alleged red light violation. After hearings and review of testimony, the court granted the motion to suppress, finding that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the stop was supported by probable cause of a traffic violation, as the officers' accounts contained inconsistencies and lacked credibility regarding the alleged violation. The court reasoned that under the Fourth Amendment, an automobile stop requires probable cause of a traffic offense, and here the radio bulletin and subsequent stop were not justified, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible as fruit of an illegal seizure.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. Jarrett
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2004-09-02 · cited 1×
In United States v. Jarrett, petitioner Milton Lloyd Jarrett, who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, later supplemented with a claim under Blakely v. Washington. He argued that the court's factual findings on drug quantity and his role as a manager or supervisor violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and that his counsel was ineffective. The court denied the motions, holding that the claims were procedurally barred for failure to pursue a direct appeal and because a voluntary guilty plea precludes collateral attack, and that the evidence in the record sufficiently supported the sentencing enhancements even under the applicable standards.
criminal lawprocedure
Cincinnati Insurance Companies v. Pestco, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2004-03-22 · cited 17×
This case concerns whether Cincinnati Insurance had a duty to defend or indemnify Pestco under commercial general liability and umbrella policies in connection with an underlying federal lawsuit alleging trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising. Pestco counterclaimed for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment that coverage existed. The court granted Pestco partial summary judgment and denied Cincinnati's motion, holding that the underlying claims qualified as advertising injury or liability under the policies. It further concluded that the first-publication exclusion did not clearly apply, the known-loss doctrine was inapplicable, and any ambiguity in the umbrella policy's treatment of intentional acts had to be resolved in favor of the insured.
business & regulatory
Parkinson v. Guidant Corp.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2004-03-22 · cited 38×
In Parkinson v. Guidant Corp., plaintiffs sued Guidant Corporation and its subsidiary ACS after a guidewire manufactured by ACS fractured during Rowan Parkinson's angioplasty procedure, causing injuries; the complaint alleged negligence, strict liability under design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure-to-warn theories, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium. The court granted summary judgment to Guidant on all claims, reasoning that a parent corporation is not liable for its subsidiary's acts absent facts showing domination or a sham entity. For ACS, the court granted summary judgment on the strict liability and breach of warranty claims under Pennsylvania law, including Comment K to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, which bars strict liability for prescription medical devices, and the learned intermediary doctrine, but denied summary judgment on the negligence claim for improper preparation of the guidewire and the derivative loss of consortium claim, allowing those to proceed to trial.
torts & liabilityhealthcare
Parkinson v. Guidant Corp.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2004-03-22 · cited 1×
This products liability case concerns a guidewire manufactured by defendant ACS that fractured during plaintiff Rowan Parkinson's angioplasty procedure, leading to claims against Guidant Corp. and related parties. The court addressed cross-motions regarding alleged spoliation of the missing shaft portion of the fractured guidewire, which changed hands among the hospital, defense counsel, and plaintiffs' counsel over several years. Plaintiffs sought sanctions and an adverse inference instruction, while defendants moved to exclude any spoliation evidence. The court denied the sanctions motion and granted the motion in limine, holding that no party could be shown responsible for the loss because the chain of custody was disputed and inconclusive, and spoliation remedies require a threshold finding of fault by the opposing party. Without clear evidence that defendants controlled and suppressed the item, the spoliation doctrine did not apply.
proceduretorts & liability
Parkinson v. Guidant Corp.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2004-03-22 · cited 3×
This is a products liability case in which plaintiff Rowan Parkinson alleges that a guidewire manufactured by defendant ACS fractured during his 1999 angioplasty procedure, leading to complications and bypass surgery. The court previously granted summary judgment on most claims but allowed a negligence claim regarding improper preparation of the guidewire and a related loss-of-consortium claim to proceed. Defendants filed motions in limine to exclude expert testimony from George Moy, Norman Johanson, and Ronald Crooks under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards. The court denied the motions, finding the experts qualified and their opinions based on sufficient facts, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application to the case facts under the Third Circuit's liberal approach to admissibility. The court also denied without prejudice a motion to exclude evidence of other guidewire fractures, allowing potential use as admissions or impeachment at trial.
torts & liabilityprocedure