Abington Heights High School Mock Trial Team Wins District Championship

2026 Abington Heights Mock Trial Team
From L. to R.: Mark Barbrack, Christopher Cummins, Aaliya Murray, Nolan Moore, Amishi Amit, Leen Abughnia, Chase Roberts, Jasleen Montesino, Henry Mahoney, Hatice Kucak, Sadie Robson, Grace Bennett, Ananya Phadke, Gabe Westgate, Eloise Giroux

Proud to note that the Abington Heights High School Mock Trial Team from Clarks Summit, Lackawanna County won the 2026 District Championship Trial last night and are on their way to the Regional Championship!

The Team is made up of a great bunch of very bright and polite students who work hard and support one another.  Very proud of all of the students on the team, including my son, Christopher.

The coaches and advisors for the team include my wife, Anne Cummins, myself Dan Cummins, Jody Healey, Esq. and Denise Bennett.  We are all so proud of the hard work these students have put in towards the success of the program.

The Mock Trial case this year was an interesting medical malpractice case involving a defendant family doctor's alleged failure to diagnose the plaintiff's medical condition.

The Finals Trial was presided over by The Honorable Judge Terrence R. Nealon who did an excellent job allowing the kids to argue their objections while providing them lessons on the law with his rulings.  Sending thanks to Judge Nealon for donating his time and expertise to the competition.

Also sending thanks to all the jurors who volunteered their time to serve last night and to those who volunteered through out the season.  The competition cannot succeed without those local lawyers, paralegals, law office staff members, and others who are willing to volunteer.  Thank you.

Also sending thanks to the Lackawanna Bar Association and its Executive Director, Lee Ann Munley, as well as Kaitlin McDonough of that office for all their time and work to make the program a success.

Sending great thanks to the District Coordinator for the Mock Trial Competition, Mackenzie Wilson, a great attorney with Munley Law, for donating all of her time and hard work to make the local competition a success.

Let's go Comets!  Keep soarin' onto the Regionals!  So proud!

Mock Trial Jurors Needed for the Northeast PA Regional Final Set For Next Monday

 The Regional Mock Trial Final for northeastern Pennsylvania is set for March 9, 2026 in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas with a start time of 6:00 p.m.

This Region covers schools in Lackawanna, Wayne, Pike, and Monroe County.

Jurors are needed to fill up the jury box for the students.  If you are willing and able to volunteer as a juror for this Regional Mock Trial Final, here is a LINK to the form being used by the Monroe County Bar Association to sign up.

Litigant Chided For Including AI Hallucinations in Appellate Filings

In the case of Saber v. Navy Federal Credit Union, No. 2449 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Jan. 14, 2026 Panella, P.J.E., Dubow, J., and Nichols, J.) (Op. by Nichols, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court again addressed an appeal in which a litigant (possibly pro se) utilized AI to draft the appellate submissions which submissions included citations to non-existent case law.

The case involved a dispute over a car loan.

In footnote 4 of its decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that the litigant provided “non-sensical citations to and characterization of" certain cases. The litigant’s Brief also contained citations to several other cases that did not exist. The court noted that these issues suggested that the litigant utilized generative artificial intelligence to draft his Brief.

The court noted that the party’s reliance upon these hallucinations led to a waiver of his claims on appeal. The Superior Court emphasized the importance of citing pertinent authority and pointed out the potential issues with using generative AI for legal filings without verifying the information secured.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (Feb. 3, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Ali Numan on www.unsplash.com.

Mock Trial Jurors Needed For Finals Trial in Lackawanna County Competition Set For Next Tuesday -- Please Consider Volunteering

 

Superior Court Addresses How To Address Settled Defendants at Trial

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Swank v. Rabkin Dermatopathology Laboratory, P.C., No. 342 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Dec. 15, 2025 Panella, P.J.E., McLaughlin, J., and Bender, P.J.E.) (Op. by Panella, P.J.E.), the court reversed the entry of judgment in favor of certain Defendants in a medical malpractice case and remanded the case back down for further proceedings.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a delayed cancer diagnosis case.

Prior to trial, the Plaintiff reached a settlement with all parties except one and proceeded to trial against that last remaining party.

The Plaintiff, along with the settling Defendants, requested the trial court to dismiss the settling Defendants prior to trial because the remaining Defendant did not have any expert to provide an expert opinion against the settling Defendants. Moreover, the remaining Defendant did not file any crossclaim against the settled Defendants. Also, the Plaintiff did not have any expert testimony that was critical of the settling Defendants that would be presented at trial.  At the trial level, it was the Plaintiff’s position that it was legally impossible for there to be a prima facie case established against the settling Defendants and that, as such, those Defendants should be dismissed. 

The trial court disagreed and kept those settling Defendants in the case, relying upon the Fair Share Act in doing so.

As the case proceeded, the trial court did end up dismissing one of the settling Defendants after the Plaintiff’s case-in-chief was completed. The remaining other settled Defendants were dismissed just before closing arguments.

At trial, the Plaintiffs claimed that there was prejudice to the Plaintiff because the jury was left wondering why these Defendants were dismissed after they participated in the trial.

The jury ended up entering a defense verdict.  

The Plaintiff appealed and, in this Superior Court decision, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings after finding that the trial court’s reliance upon Fair Share Act was misplaced.

Judge Panella, who wrote this Opinion, as well as the Fair Share Act case of Spencer v. Johnson, 249 A.3d 529 (Pa. Super. 2021), noted that the Superior Court has concluded that, for the “Fair Share Act to apply, the Plaintiff’s negligence must be an issue in the case.” See Op. at 13 citing Spencer, 249 A.3d at 559.

The court noted that, in this case, the Plaintiff’s negligence was not at issue in the case. As such, the court ruled that the trial court erred in relying upon the Fair Share Act to keep Defendants in the case.

The court otherwise noted that there is no absolute right to have settled Co-Defendants on a Verdict Sheet. Rather, the appellate court noted that a trial court must determine whether any evidence of the settled Co-Defendant’s liability exists in the case presented before deciding whether that party should be put on the Verdict Slip.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Carmen J. Nocera of the Pittsburgh law firm of Harry S. Cohen & Associates, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image: Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on www.pexels.com.

Superior Court Upholds The "Miscellaneous Vehicle" Exclusion Contained in UIM Policy

In the case of Erie Ins. Exch. v. Estate of Kennedy, 210 WDA 2025, 2025 Pa. Super 276 (Pa. Super. Dec. 11, 2025 Bowes, J., Stabile, J., Bender P.J.E.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Superior Court upheld a "miscellaneous vehicle" exclusion contained in the UIM carrier’s policy. 

The court more specifically ruled that the denial of coverage was proper when the deceased injured party had a policy providing stacking of uninsured and underinsured benefits that included an exclusion stating that the policy would not cover damages sustained by an insured while occupying a miscellaneous vehicle owned by a relative and that was not covered under the subject insurance policy. 

The Superior Court ruled that the "miscellaneous vehicle" exclusion was valid in this case because the insured was seeking to stack policies but had not first received uninsured and underinsured coverage under the policy applicable to the vehicle he occupied at the time the injuries occurred.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source:  “Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges in the Pennsylvania Bar News (Jan. 19, 2026). 

Please Consider Helping Out -- Mock Trial Jurors Still Needed for Tomorrow's Lackawanna Competition