The U.S. Constitution, which remains the bedrock of American civil rights, serves to establish a minimum level of protection that states are bound to uphold. Some state constitutions provide more expansive and detailed protections for state residents—meaning that rather than treating state constitutional claims as an afterthought, litigants can center their claims on state constitutions when those state constitutions offer more favorable grounds to secure their rights.

In the November 27, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Don’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home.Continue reading ›

Kang Haggerty has once again received national and regional recognition in the 15th edition of the United States Best Law Firms® rankings.

The firm’s construction law practice received a national ranking in Tier 2 for Construction Law, and Litigation – Construction. In the rankings for the Philadelphia metro region, Kang Haggerty ranked in Tier 1 for Construction Law, and Litigation – Construction. The firm is ranked in Tier 2 for Commercial Litigation.

National Rankings

Some recent cases, such as Yegiazaryan v. Smagin and Medical Marijuana v. Horn, show that the courts are grappling with the statute’s injury requirement and might expand the sense of hope for plaintiffs.

In the November 7, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Civil RICO’s Expanding Reach: From Foreign Schemes to Lost Employment.” Continue reading ›

Until the circuit split regarding Rule 34 “control” over ESI possessed by a third party is resolved, determining an employer’s obligation to preserve and produce ESI contained on an employee’s personal mobile device that is used for work-related purposes will remain murky waters.

In the October 24, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Beth Hurley wrote, “An Employer’s Rule 34 ‘Possession, Custody and Control’ Over ESI on ‘BYOD’ Devices.” Continue reading ›

Although hearsay evidence is generally prohibited, the definitional carve-outs and exceptions provide trial judges with the latitude to admit trustworthy evidence that would otherwise be excluded. Both the Pennsylvania Code and the Federal Rules of Evidence recognize such exceptions, but they approach their admissibility and use with distinct priorities and limitations.

In the October 17, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “A Word on Hearsay: Using Prior Statements Under Pennsylvania and Federal Rules.Continue reading ›

As an initial matter, the government’s refusal to intervene in an FCA action does not strip a relator of his Article III standing in bringing an FCA action when the relator does not suffer an injury in fact. Qui tam actions present a “well-established exception” to the traditional Article III analysis.

In the August 30, 2024 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Going It Alone: Can Whistleblowers Seek Corporate Veil-Piercing in Declined Cases?Continue reading ›

Kang Haggerty LLC is proud to have three lawyers recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® and two lawyers recognized in the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America 2025 editions. Congratulations to Henry J. Donner, Gregory H. Mathews, Stanley B. Edelstein, Kandis L. Kovalsky and Kyle T. Garabedian. Continue reading ›

Contact Information