Teresa Kocher v. Laua Bearden
Citations
- 546 S.W.3d 78
Syllabus
This appeal involves a third-party's attempt to intervene in this case in order to gain access to documents in the record, as the entire record was previously sealed by the trial court pursuant to an agreed order between the original parties. The trial court denied the third-party's motion to intervene and also denied its motion to modify the order sealing the record. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court's denial of the motion to intervene, vacate its denial of the motion to modify the protective order sealing the record, and remand for further proceedings.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Because this issue is not encompassed within our grant of allocatur, we do not consider it.”
- “Due process protections . . . emanate from the Pennsylvania Constitution, particularly Article I, Sections 1, 9, and 11.”
- “A statute is facially unconstitutional only where there are no circumstances under which the statute would be valid.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Judge Brandon O. Gibson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.