News » Edward T. Kang

Archives

|

In the April 17, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang writes, “Civil RICO Gets Personal—Supreme Court Allows Recovery of Economic Harm Deriving From Personal Injury.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Medical Marijuana v. Horn expands the reach of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), clarifying that injuries to business or property that derive from personal injuries may, under some circumstances, constitute a compensable injury. Historically, courts have read RICO’s civil enforcement provisions narrowly, excluding economic losses deriving from personal injury. Horn reverses this trend, opening new possibilities for plaintiffs for recovery.

Continue reading ›

|

Offers of judgment encourage settlement by shifting litigation risks to the party that refuses a reasonable settlement offer, thus forcing the party to carefully assess whether proceeding to trial is worth the financial risk. Offers of judgment, if used properly, can provide strategic leverage in negotiations and serve as a decisive tool in bringing cases to a more efficient resolution.

In the March 20, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang writes, “Shifting the Balance: Use Offer of Judgment in Litigation.” Continue reading ›

|

Two doctrines frequently arise in Pennsylvania jurisprudence when addressing disputes between the parties to a contract: the parol evidence rule and the gist of the action doctrine. While each serves a distinct purpose, their application often overlaps, especially in fraud cases between the parties to a contract. Understanding both rules is essential for practitioners to craft persuasive arguments.

In the January 17, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang writes, “Litigating the Written Word: Parol Evidence Rule and the Gist of the Action Doctrine in Fraud Claims.” Continue reading ›

|

While vigorous efforts have been made to push the courts to interpret the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) with an increasingly broad preemptive scope, effectively overriding state laws designed to regulate arbitration, recent decisions underscore that courts are not willing to uphold arbitration agreements when fairness and justice might be compromised. Legitimate concerns surrounding arbitration are prompting more judicial scrutiny—a trend worth examining.

In the December 20, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “Stacked Decks and Sealed Deals: How Arbitration Tilts the Scales.” Continue reading ›

|

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 ›

|

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 ›

|

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 ›

|

Pennsylvania has unique procedures for raising and preserving issues for appeal after trial that could “surprise” many unsuspecting practitioners, especially those who do not practice regularly in the commonwealth.

In the July 18, 2024 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang writes, “Better Safe Than Sorry: Filing Post-Trial Motions in Pennsylvania.” Continue reading ›

|

Civil RICO is seen as “the litigation equivalent of a thermonuclear device,” and civil RICO claims are often employed in complex, high-stakes litigation.

In the July 5, 2024 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang writes, “From Mobsters to Fraudsters: Clearing the Bar for Civil RICO Claims.” Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Philadelphia Office
123 S Broad St #1950
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 525-5850
New Jersey Office
10000 Lincoln Dr E #201
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: (856) 266-9330
We serve clients throughout the Delaware Valley including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Pennsylvania including Berks County, Bucks County, Chester County, Delaware County, Montgomery County, and Philadelphia County; New Jersey including Atlantic County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Gloucester County, Salem County, and Mercer County; Delaware including Kent County and New Castle County; and Maryland including Cecil County. We also serve clients in New York. View More

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Kang Haggerty LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design