The Legal Intelligencer Blog

E-Discovery Tips to Benefit Your Law Practice

By Gina F. Rubel
Special to the Legal

The Legal Intelligencer hosts its annual Litigation Summit in Philadelphia, which covers a potpourri of issues from e-discovery to trends in the courtroom. As an avid Twitter user, I often share important tips from the speaker using the conference hashtag #TLILitSum. Another way to share those tips is to compile them in a blog for all of our lawyer friends who do not actively use social media.

Here are just a few of the e-discovery takeaways from the CLE program presented by Gerard Dever of Fine, Kaplan and Black, Stephen Harvey of Pepper Hamilton, Shawn Huston of Legal Support Partners, Michael Nelson of DFDR Consulting and Melinda Sungenis of the TASA Group.

• Changes have been proposed for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding e-discovery. Keep an eye on Rules 1, 26 and 37.
• Requests for social media information are standard in litigation today. However, the social media being requested must be relevant and specific; requests cannot be fishing expeditions. In order to get social media data via e-discovery, you must request specific data including user credentials from the custodian or access the information publicly, if security settings make the information available to all.
• E-discovery needs to be considered early in litigation in order to preserve evidence, especially electronic data, which exists everywhere. Create a data map including all computers, email accounts and servers, smartphones and cellphones, network servers, clouds, databases, proprietary systems, black boxes, fax machines, printers, GPS systems, social media sites, photos, apps, shared drives, PowerPoint presentations, Dropbox files, etc.
• A button on Facebook that says "download my data" allows users to capture their full activity log. Directions on how to do this may be found here.
• Facebook has a 14-day data hold policy until it will overwrite a deactivated account.
• Geolocation data, such as location tags on photographs or “check-ins” on Facebook or the social location app Foursquare can be extremely valuable in litigation.

‏Do you have any other e-discovery tips that you’d like to share? Include them in the comments.

Gina F. Rubel is the owner of Furia Rubel Communications Inc., an integrated marketing and public relations agency with a niche in legal marketing. She and her agency have won national awards for law firm marketing, PR, website and graphic design, social media, strategic planning, corporate philanthropy and leadership. She maintains a blog at www.ThePRLawyer.com and is a contributor toThe Legal Intelligencer Blog, AVVO Lawyernomics and The Huffington Post. Find her on LinkedIn atwww.linkedin.com/in/ginafuriarubel or follow her on Twitter at twitter.com/ginarubel. For more information, go to www.FuriaRubel.com.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal and Pa. Law Weekly

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

Also inside of today’s paper is the latest Intellectual Property supplement, so be sure to give it a read.

The top story in today’s Legal is a look at the law surrounding third-party liability of law firms, which has recently been in the spotlight as appeals have been made to the Pennsylvania and U.S. Supreme Courts. As reporter Gina Passarella writes, law firms have been targeted as third-party defendants for their alleged roles in allowing fraudulent, or simply bad, business practices to continue by their clients.

Also on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a lawsuit over the ownership of a LinkedIn profile is now set for trial after an Eastern District judge dismissed all of the federal claims and decided to proceed on the remaining claims under state law.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Zack Needles writes that an orthopedic surgeon who won a $392,000 verdict against the law firm that used what he claimed was an unfinished expert report and the medical professional organization that subsequently suspended him has sued the doctors’ association for refusing to remove from its website an article detailing the suspension proceedings.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an Appellate Law column on Page 5, Howard J. Bashman praises the Superior Court’s increased access to opinions after a recently policy change announcement.

In a Family Law column on Page 7, Michael E. Bertin writes about a recent case in which the Superior Court analyzed relocation under the new custody statute.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the state Superior Court ruling that state law does not allow for underinsured motorist recovery to offset an award against a third-party tortfeasor. As reporter Ben Present writes, the holding overrules the court’s decision in Pusl v. Means.

Below the fold on Page 1, Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court has ruled that general practitioners are not barred from consensual sex with patients in a case of first impression regarding a GP who was providing “incidental mental health treatment” to a patient.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes that the state Superior Court has imposed corporate liability on nursing homes in a recent decision.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about nonrefundable fee clauses; Daniel J. Siegel’s Legal Ethics column on proposed changes to the rules affecting legal advertising; and Daniel E. Cummins’ Politics column on where the presidential candidates stand on tort reform and judicial selection.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal and Pa. Law Weekly

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story in today’s Legal is the second in reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel’s series on products liability, as she writes about how the growth of foreign class and mass actions are changing products law.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that Pennsylvania federal courts are at odds on the adoption of the Restatement (Third) of Torts. A Western District judge applied it in a recent products liability case, while the Middle District recently indicated that the Restatement (Second) is still the guiding force in the state.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that the ABA has blessed client disclosure to facilitate lateral moves. The ABA recently looked at giving some guidelines for how to share the information regarding client names to facilitate conflict checks with potential new firms.

In a From the Chief column on Page 3, Hank Grezlak writes that state courts must tread more carefully with the right to vote.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Law Office Technology column on Page 5, Thomas E. Groshens writes about moving to the cloud and details the capabilities of Evernote and the future of data management.

In a Legal Marketing column on Page 7, Stacy West Clark writes about implementing a 90-day plan to grow your practice.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the rare reargument grant in an Office of Open Records case involving the release of Governor Corbett’s calendar information. As Zack Needles writes, lawyers said it was “almost unprecedented” for the Commonwealth Court to grant reargument.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that an allocatur grant is being disputed in the wake of amendments made to the Medical Records Act.

On Page 3, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the Commonwealth Court has ruled that the calendars for Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter and the 17 members of City Council are exempt from the state’s Right-to-Know Law.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about lawyers who fail to pay their bills; James W. Cushing’s Real Estate column on Cheltenham Township’s dispute with the First Korean Church of New York Inc.; and a Personal Injury column on accident reconstruction in vehicle-pedestrian collisions.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

There is also a supplement inside today’s paper covering Labor and Employment, so be sure to give that a look.

The top story in today’s Legal is the alleged victims taking center stage at the beginning of Jerry Sandusky’s trial. Reporter Ben Present is in Bellefonte, Pa., to deliver all the details.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that teenage terrorist Mohammed Khalid was before a federal judge Monday with a motion to be released from detention in order to enter a state-run juvenile facility in Loysville, Pa.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that suspended state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin has hired Scranton attorney Patrick A. Casey of Myers Brier & Kelly as her criminal defense.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Saranac Hale Spencer writes that the Third Circuit has mooted Lockheed Martin’s appeal over nuclear material.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Litigation column on Page 5, Denis James Lawler, Daphne Goldman and Mackenzie W. Smith write about the attorney-client privilege and ask if there is a fiduciary exception in Part II of a series.

In an Appellate Law column on Page 7, Howard J. Bashman writes that efficiency should be chosen over a prolonged deadlock in the state Supreme Court.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the state House of Representatives tabling a merit selection bill despite recent judicial scandals.

Below the fold on Page 1, Ben Present writes that to trigger the MCARE window, a defendant must know of an action.

On Page 3, Zack Needles writes that the Superior Court has said that “household” in insurance policies has two meanings.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about balancing zealous advocacy with the duty of candor to the court; Matthew Weisberg’s Legal Profession column on causes of action emanating from legal malpractice; and Joel A. Rose’s Law Firm Management column on three proven short-term strategies to sustain and grow future profits.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Recent Amendments to Rules 121, 903, 1113 and 1512

By Mandi L. Scott
Special to the Legal

On April 9, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court amended the Official Note to Pa. R.A.P. 121 and Rules 903, 1113, 1512 to clarify that subdivision (e) of Rule 121 applies to calculating the deadline for filing cross-appeals, cross-petitions for allowance of appeal and additional petitions for review.

Rule 121(e) (“Additional time after service by mail and commercial carrier”) provides that:

“Whenever a party is required or permitted to do an act within a prescribed period after service of a paper upon that party (other than an order of a court or other government unit) and the paper is served by United States mail or by commercial carrier, three days shall be added to the prescribed period.”

The official comment to Rule 121(e) expressly explains that this subdivision does not apply to the filing of a notice of appeal, a petition for allowance of appeal, a petition for permission to appeal or a petition for reconsideration or reargument because the deadlines for filing such documents run from the entry and service of an order, not a filing by another party.

However, confusion had arisen with respect to whether 121(e) applied to the filing of a cross-appeal, cross-petition for allowance of appeal and additional petitions for review because the rules governing such submissions (Rules 903, 1113 and 1512) calculated the deadline within so many days of the “filing” (rather than service) of the initiating appeal or petition. (Compare Coney Island II Inc. v. Pottsville Area School District, 497 Pa. 373, 441 A.2d 747 (1982) and Malt Beverages Distribution Association v. PLCB, No. 54 MM 2009, 2009 Pa. Lexis 1613 (Pa. Aug. 6, 2009).)

The amendments to Rules 903, 1113, 1512 simply substitute “served” for “filed” in determining the filing deadline, bringing cross-appeals, cross-petitions for allowance of appeal and additional petitions for review clearly within the application of Rule 121(e). The Official Note to Rule 121 was amended to expressly include such documents.

Mandi L. Scott is an associate with the Pittsburgh-based law firm of Goehring Rutter & Boehm, where she has been practicing since 2004. Currently, her practice focuses on appellate issues and municipal law. To contact her, e-mail [email protected].

Recent Amendments to Pa. R.A.P. 311 & 342

By Mandi L. Scott
Special to the Legal

On Dec. 29, 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court amended Rules 311 and 342 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. The amendments apply to Orphans’ Court orders entered on or after Feb. 13, 2012.

According to new Rule 342(a), an immediate appeal may be taken as of right from the following orders of the Orphans’ Court:

(1) An order confirming an account, or authorizing or directing a distribution from an estate or trust;

(2) An order determining the validity of a will or trust;

(3) An order interpreting a will or a document that forms the basis of a claim against an estate or trust;

(4) An order interpreting, modifying, reforming or terminating a trust;

(5) An order determining the status of fiduciaries, beneficiaries or creditors in an estate, trust or guardianship;

(6) An order determining an interest in real or personal property;

(7) An order issued after an inheritance tax appeal has been taken to the Orphans’ Court pursuant to either 72 Pa.C.S. §9186(a)(3) or 72 Pa.C.S. §9188, or after the Orphans’ Court has made a determination of the issue protested after the record has been removed from the Department of Revenue pursuant to 72 Pa.C.S. §9188(a); or

(8) An order otherwise appealable as provided by Chapter 3 of these rules.

Prior to the amendment to Rule 342, in order to file an immediate appeal from an order of the Orphans’ Court making a distribution, or determining an interest in realty or personalty or the status of individuals or entities, the Orphans’ Court had to make a determination of finality when entering the order. According to the official note accompanying amended Rule 342, the prior rule was not working and was not being applied consistently. Thus, orders falling within subdivisions (a)(1) through (7) listed above no longer require the Orphans’ Court to make a determination of finality and are instead immediately appealable as of right.

With respect to Rule 311, following a 2005 amendment, orders determining the validity of a will or trust were appealable as of right under Rule 311(a)(8). The December 2011 amendment makes such orders immediately appealable under Rule 342(a)(2).

Of particular importance, it should be noted that pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) of amended Rule 342, an order entered with respect to any account, even an interim or partial account, is now immediately appealable as of right.

In addition, subdivision (a)(5), which applies to estates, trusts and guardianships, was intended to clarify that an appealable Orphans’ Court order concerning the status of “individual or entities” (as used in prior Rule 342) means an order determining if an individual or entity is a fiduciary, beneficiary or creditor. Further, it has now been confirmed that an order removing or refusing to remove a fiduciary is immediately appealable under this subdivision.

The goal of the amendment is to facilitate orderly and efficient administration of estates, trusts and guardianships in the Orphans’ Court Division.

Mandi L. Scott is an associate with the Pittsburgh-based law firm of Goehring Rutter & Boehm, where she has been practicing since 2004. Currently, her practice focuses on appellate issues and municipal law. To contact her, e-mail [email protected].

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story in today’s Legal is U.S. District Court Judge C. Darnell Jones II of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania looking at the Defense of Marriage Act’s validity in a Cozen O’Connor benefits disputes. As Gina Passarella writes, the dispute is between the parents of a deceased Cozen O’Connor partner and her wife. Both sides provided briefs on the constitutionality of DOMA but de-emphasized it, instead focusing on the terms of Cozen O’Connor’s benefits plan.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that prosecutors in the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia sex-abuse case want to present expert testimony on the process sexual abusers of children use to “‘groom’” their victims.

Below the fold on Page 1, Gina Passarella writes about the ongoing dispute between Elliott Greenleaf and a former partner. The firm has amended its complaint against the ex-partner and his new firm, Stevens & Lee, for his alleged remote access to the firm’s files. It now includes the theft of more files via portable drives and the misappropriation of escrow funds.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that a federal judge has ruled that a French firm must comply with federal discovery rules.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Litigation column on Page 5, Howard J. Bashman writes a guide to delays on appeal, wondering if there is an appellate traffic jam ahead.

In a Real Estate column on Page 7, Martin J. Doyle and Ross E. Bruch write about the number of different ways a recent state Superior Court case on judgment liens can be instructive.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the state Supreme Court hearing oral arguments last week in a case that deals with a last-minute jury substitution. As reporter Zack Needles writes, a principal juror in Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hospital, a medical malpractice trial in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, was inexplicably replaced with no notice to the attorneys or the judge.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that the state Supreme Court also heard oral arguments last week about whether a Bucks County School District’s board of directors had effectively forced out the school’s tax collectors by lowering their pay rates.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes about a workers’ compensation case for which the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week, in which a woman who belatedly applied for several jobs listed in a labor market survey had work “available” to her for the purpose of her employer’s request to modify workers’ compensation benefits.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he discusses the ethics of judges using social media; a commentary on Family Law by Andrew D. Taylor, in which he writes that the doctrine of paternity by estoppel is hanging on by a thread; a sex-abuse case in which a step-grandfather was determined to be a “perpetrator”; and the W-2 forms of public school employees are not public records, according to a Commonwealth Court ruling.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Appeals of Interlocutory Orders, Part 2: Interlocutory Appeals by Permission

By Mandi L. Scott
Special to the Legal

This is the second part in a series on appeals of interlocutory orders. Here is Part 1.

Sometimes a court or government unit entering an interlocutory (non-final) order is of the opinion that the order in question involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter. 42 Pa. C.S. §702(b) permits the court or government unit to state the same in its interlocutory order, thus giving a party the right to attempt to file an interlocutory appeal by permission pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 312 and Chapter 13 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The most important thing to know about Chapter 13 is that, even if the trial court includes the “magic” language required by 42 Pa. C.S. §702(b), an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order is not permissible. Instead, the party seeking to file an appeal must file a Petition for Permission to Appeal with the prothonotary of the appropriate appellate court within 30 days after the entry of the interlocutory order containing the statement required by Section 702(b). See Pa. R.A.P. 1311.

One other note of caution to those filing a Petition for Permission to Appeal an interlocutory order, the filing of such a petition does not stay the proceedings before the lower court or other government unit, unless the lower court or other government unit, or the appellate court, orders a stay.

That statement, again, is: “[this] order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter[.]”

Rule 1311 further requires that any petition be served on all other parties to the matter and on the government unit or lower court issuing the interlocutory order so that the petition may be docketed of record before the lower tribunal.

As for the contents of a Petition for Permission to Appeal an interlocutory order, the petition must contain the following:

1. A jurisdictional statement.

2. The text of the interlocutory order in question.

3. A concise statement of the case.

4. The controlling question(s) of law presented to the appellate court for review and a concise statement of why a substantial ground exists for a difference of opinion on the question and why an immediate appeal may materially advance termination of the case.

The failure of a petitioner to present its position with accuracy, brevity and clarity is a sufficient reason for the appellate court to deny the petition.

Finally, if a Petition for Permission to Appeal is filed asking the appellate court to exercise its discretion and accept the subject order for review, but the order is actually a final order which was immediately appealable as of right, the appellate court may treat the petition as an appeal from a final order pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1316.

Mandi L. Scott is an associate with the Pittsburgh-based law firm of Goehring Rutter & Boehm, where she has been practicing since 2004. Currently, her practice focuses on appellate issues and municipal law. To contact her, e-mail [email protected].

Appeals of Interlocutory Orders – Part 1, Pa. R.A.P. 341(c)

By Mandi L. Scott
Special to the Legal

In general, appeals are only permitted from final orders, as defined by Pa. R.A.P. 341. In an action involving more than one claim, an order disposing of less than all of the claims is considered an interlocutory order (not final) and therefore not immediately appealable. However, pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 341(c), a party seeking to immediately appeal an interlocutory order disposing of less than all claims may apply to the trial court for a determination of finality which would permit an immediate appeal.

In order for an interlocutory order disposing of less than all claims to be immediately appealable, the trial court must make an express determination that “an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case.” Such an order becomes appealable when entered.

If the trial court does not initially make such an express determination, the party seeking to file an immediate appeal must file an application for a determination of finality with the trial court, asking the trial court to amend its interlocutory order to make the express determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case.

The Official Note to Rule 341 lists the factors to be considered by the trial court when making a determination of finality. Those factors include: (1) whether there is a significant relationship between adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) whether there is a possibility that an appeal would be mooted by further developments; (3) whether there is a possibility that the trial court will consider issues a second time; and (4) whether an immediate appeal will enhance prospects of settlement. Other factors include whether failure to entertain an immediate appeal will result in an injustice which a later appeal would not correct. See Pullman Power Prods. of Can. v. Basic Eng'rs, 713 A.2d 1169, 1173 (Pa. Super. 1998).

While the rules provide that an application for determination of finality must be filed within 30 days of entry of the trial court’s interlocutory order, Rule 341(c)(3) further provides that the trial court must act on the application within 30 days of entry of the interlocutory order so any application for a determination of finality should be filed earlier in order to give the opposing party and the trial court sufficient time to consider the application. During the time an application for a determination of finality is pending, the action is stayed.

If the trial court grants the application for a determination of finality, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the trial court’s amended order (unless a shorter time period is provided in Pa. R.A.P. 903(c)).

Further, if the trial court denies the application for a determination of finality, or the application is deemed denied because it is not decided within 30 days of the entry of the trial court’s interlocutory order, the party seeking an immediate appeal may seek review of the trial court’s denial by filing a petition for review with the appellate court pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Finally, it should be noted that the appellate courts may review the merits of a trial court’s determination of finality even if the parties do not challenge that decision. See Pullman Power Prods. of Can., 713 A.2d at 1173-1174; Wisniski v. Brown & Brown Ins. Co., 852 A.2d 1206, 1209-1210 (Pa. Super. 2004), citing F.D.P. ex rel. S.M.P. v. Ferrara, 804 A.2d 1221, 1227 n. 6 (Pa. Super. 2002).

Mandi L. Scott is an associate with the Pittsburgh-based law firm of Goehring Rutter & Boehm, where she has been practicing since 2004. Currently, her practice focuses on appellate issues and municipal law. To contact her, e-mail [email protected].

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

Today’s top story, writes reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel, is drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline asking the judge overseeing the federal multidistrict litigation regarding the diabetes drug Avandia to limit the contingency fees of attorneys representing individual plaintiffs to 25 percent of client awards. GSK said that in litigation “where, as here, the attorneys did not perform a substantial portion of the work, but rather benefited from coordinated discovery and other work performed by the plaintiffs’ steering committee,” the court should limit such fees, according to court papers.

Below the fold on Page 1 today, reporter Gina Passarella writes about the modest class action settlement for a group of amusement park-goers who said Palace Entertainment and Festival Fun Parks violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Card Transactions Act by printing receipts that contained the consumers’ credit and debit card expiration dates. The preliminary approval for the class in Hanlon v. Palace Entertainment Holdings will give individuals in the class a single free ticket to the amusement park.

On Page 3 of today’s Legal, reporter Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court, in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, has vacated a Superior Court ruling in the products liability case of an 11-year-old autistic boy. This comes less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in the case that the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act pre-empts all vaccination design defect claims brought against vaccine makers in state court.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

Today’s Appellate Law column is on Page 5, as Howard J. Bashman writes about how to repair the record on appeal to ensure that it reflects the full truth in all cases. “Unfortunately, it is not unusual for the record on appeal to fail to accurately reflect what actually happened before the trial court,” writes Bashman.

On Page 7, Peter F. Vaira writes about Eastern District Practice, discussing methods for federal criminal discovery and a new book he has read that deals with the topic.

As it is Tuesday, it’s also your chance to read this week’s Pennsylvania Law Weekly. The lead story for PLW, written by Amaris Elliott-Engel, details the state Supreme Court’s rejection of a petition by Allegheny County to exercise its King’s Bench or extraordinary jurisdiction to determine if the county’s real property assessment system is constitutional.

On the bottom of Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes an allocatur story about the state Supreme Court granting the appeal of a convicted murderer who was denied the right to testify after the evidence phase of his trial had closed.

This week’s Page 3 story comes from Zack Needles, who writes that an Allegheny County trial judge has ruled that Pennsylvania law, rather than Texas law, should be used in deciding the sufficiency of evidence linking coal tar pitch volatiles to cancer in more than 60 products liability cases involving injuries that occurred in Texas.

There’s plenty more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s weekly Ethics Forum, in which he tackles terminating relationships with uncooperative clients; Andrew D. Taylor’s Family Law commentary regarding Pennsylvania’s new Child Custody Act; a forgetful jury foreperson leading to an ineffective assistance claim; and a special needs trust allowing an auto-accident plaintiff to collect a settlement and keep her benefits.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.