F.N.C. After Bratic? Cheeseman Lives! But Distance Matters
|
|
- Alvin Goodman
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 F.N.C. After Bratic? Cheeseman Lives! But Distance Matters Dale Larrimore Many Philadelphia attorneys saw the Bratic v. Rubendall 1 decision as a case that would open the floodgates for cases being transferred out of Philadelphia to neighboring counties. Relax. Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc. 2 is still the gold standard for establishing the heavy burden placed on defendants before a court should grant a petition to transfer venue based on forum non conveniens. The litigation in Bratic originated out of a claim filed in Dauphin County. When the court there granted summary judgment to the defendants, those defendants then initiated a Dragonetti action in Philadelphia County against the parties and attorneys who had sued them. The defendants in the Dragonetti action filed a petition to transfer the case to Dauphin County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1). The trial court granted the motion to transfer, but this was reversed in an en banc decision from the Superior Court that held that defendants had not met their burden of proving oppressiveness and vexatiousness as required by Cheeseman. The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal and reversed the Superior Court. Significantly, however, the Supreme Court did not overrule Cheeseman and, in fact, it actually reaffirmed the Cheeseman standard. In Cheeseman, the Supreme Court held that, while Rule 1006(d)(1) allows transfer based on the convenience of the parties, convenience, or the lack thereof, is not the test our case law has established. To obtain a transfer based on forum non conveniens, the moving party must show, with detailed information on the record, that the plaintiff s chosen forum is either oppressive or vexatious. In Bratic, the court noted that Cheeseman and Rule 1006(d)(1) do not require any particular form of proof. The moving party must present a sufficient factual basis for the petition and the trial court retains discretion to determine whether the particular form of proof is sufficient. As between Philadelphia and adjoining Bucks County, the situation in Cheeseman, we speak of mere inconvenience; as between Philadelphia and counties 100 miles away, simple inconvenience fades in the mirror and we near oppressiveness with every milepost of the turnpike and the Schuylkill Expressway. 3 Did the Supreme Court in Bratic perhaps soften the defendant s burden for an FNC transfer? Many would say, yes, but the Supreme Court took pains to clarify that the standards remain the same. While reaffirming Cheeseman, the court held that the showing of oppressiveness needed for a judge to grant an FNC petition is not as severe as suggested by the Superior Court s post-cheeseman cases. Mere inconvenience is insufficient, but there is no burden to show near-draconian consequences. 4 So, where are we? We are left with two guiding principles that are still in place and sacrosanct. First, never forget that the Supreme Court has emphatically stated that the plaintiff s choice of forum is
2 entitled to weighty consideration. 5 Second, defendants must still demonstrate that the plaintiff s chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious to the defendant. On December 30, 2015, a panel of the Superior Court issued the most significant post-bratic appellate decision, in two consolidated cases, Fessler v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and Scott v. Menna & Wawa. 6 In a well written opinion by Judge Jenkins, the Superior Court held that the trial court in Philadelphia abused its discretion in both cases by granting defendants motions to transfer to York County (in Fessler) and Chester County (in Scott). Our Supreme Court has made clear that courts should not transfer venue on the basis of forum non conveniens unless the defendant demonstrates that trial in the plaintiff s chosen forum would be oppressive to the defendant. In both Fessler and Scott, trial in Philadelphia would be, at most, merely inconvenient to the defendants instead of oppressive. Each of these consolidated cases had facts that are worth noting. In Fessler, the defendants delayed filing their motion to transfer and supporting affidavits from four witnesses until the eve of trial, after the witnesses had appeared without objection for their depositions in Montgomery County, just 20 miles from Center City Philadelphia. 7 The Superior Court noted that the facts strongly suggested that the motion to transfer was the product of bad-faith collaboration between defendants and the witnesses from York County, and that this was a last minute gambit to delay trial. The facts in Scott v. Menna & Wawa, are more typical, and more useful to plaintiffs in attempting to fight a transfer based on forum non conveniens. This litigation arose out of a vehicular crash in Chester County, where Menna resided. Because Wawa regularly conducts business in Philadelphia, venue was proper here. After Wawa settled with Scott, it was dismissed from the case and Menna then filed a petition to transfer to Chester County. The Court noted the similarity to Zappala II 8 and noted that there was no evidence in the record that Wawa was joined for the sole or primary purpose of gaining venue in Philadelphia and harassing Menna. 9 The Superior Court held that it is not an excessive burden to ask a Chester County defendant to travel approximately 40 miles to downtown Philadelphia for trial. Travel from Chester County is merely inconvenient, instead of oppressive [and] in reality, traveling from Delaware, Bucks, Montgomery or Chester County to Philadelphia is not particularly onerous. 10 The concept that distance matters is reinforced by an earlier Superior Court decision in Lee v. Thrower 11, where another panel of the Superior Court affirmed a transfer of litigation from Philadelphia to Centre County based on forum non conveniens. Travel considerations for witnesses and transportation considerations for evidence are generally less of a concern when a Philadelphia trial court is faced with a motion to transfer venue to an adjacent suburban Philadelphia county. 12 The appellate court noted that travel to and from State College to Philadelphia could take three to four hours each way and that distance, combined with the number of witnesses in the case, most of whom were based in Centre County, would result in an oppressive situation for defendants.
3 A plethora of earlier Superior Court decisions had laid the groundwork for this analysis, where a distance, although not dispositive, has been seen as a primary factor in determining if an FNC petition should be granted. 13 It is not necessary to articulate to a jurist the inherently empirical concept that distance and expedience are inversely proportional. 14 Decisions subsequent to Bratic have followed this same pathway in a forum non conveniens analysis. 15 Two lower court decisions are worth noting, however, before we leave this analysis. In Fishnel v. Christian-Baker Company 16, the defendant filed a Petition to Transfer litigation from Philadelphia to Dauphin County based on forum non conveniens. Judge Massiah-Jackson denied the petition, leaving the litigation in Philadelphia. The facts in Fishnel involved a tragic accident in a stone quarry in Harrisburg. Litigation was filed in Philadelphia that resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were unable to collect the judgment through insurance proceeds and filed this litigation against an insurance carrier and insurance broker. Defendants filed a FNC petition to change venue under Rule 1006(d)(1), arguing that Philadelphia s courts were selected solely for the purpose of harassing defendants. Judge Massiah-Jackson noted that in defendants brief, the City Hall courthouse is derided and labeled oppressive and vexatious. The Court held that defendants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the chosen forum was, in fact, oppressive and vexatious, in an opinion that cited to the prompt trials that occur under Philadelphia s Case Management Protocol; noting that if there is need to view the quarry, then videos or photographs could be brought to the courtroom; and concluding that the record demonstrates mere inconvenience to two individuals. The second lower court decision worth reading is another well-reasoned and thoughtful opinion by Judge Nealon in Lackawanna County. In Horst v. Union Carbide Corporation, often does, provided a very thorough summary of the law before rendering his decision reviewing multiple factors that a trial court can review in determining a forum non conveniens petition. First, the trial court must give deference to the plaintiff s choice of forum. As stated by the Supreme Court in Bratic, the plaintiff s choice of forum is entitled to weighty consideration, and the party seeking a change of venue bears a heavy burden in justifying the request to transfer. As stated in Cheeseman, the plaintiff s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed under Rule 1006(d)(1). To meet this burden, defendant must show that plaintiff s chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious. Defendant can prove a forum is vexatious by establishing with facts on the record that plaintiff s choice of forum was designed to harass the defendant, even at some inconvenience to plaintiff. Alternatively, defendant can prove that a forum is oppressive by establishing on the record a series of factors. While mere inconvenience is insufficient, there is no burden to show near-draconian consequences. Judge Nealon then went through, seriatim, factors that a trial judge should review. First, the mere fact that the site of the precipitating event was outside plaintiff s choice of forum is not dispositive. 17 Judge Nealon, as he
4 Second, while plaintiff s residency is peripheral to the issue and insufficient to warrant transfer to another county, it is not error for a trial court to reflect upon it if residence is probative of oppressiveness as long as it is not the sole reason for the judge s decision. In the Horst case, Judge Nealon noted that the defendant was located in Lancaster County and he recognized that litigating a claim in the home county of a corporate employer certainly presents legitimate concerns for a plaintiff. Next, if court congestion and the volume of litigation in the chosen forum contributes to the oppressiveness of the chosen venue, it may be considered, but the court in Bratic reiterated that it is not a factor sufficient by itself to warrant transfer. The possibility of a jury view under Rule 219 is a pertinent consideration only if a site visit is truly warranted by the facts of the case, but an affidavit indicating that a jury view may be necessary is insufficient since such a mere guess about this possible future step is not the type of detailed information on the record that the Supreme Court mandates be presented by the moving party. Judge Nealon noted that parties seeking a change of venue typically submit supporting affidavits from prospective witnesses. These can certainly be important for the trial judge to consider, but he also emphasized that references to potential or unnamed witnesses who may possess relevant information do not satisfy the moving party s burden of proof. In the Horst case, Judge Nealon noted that the expert witnesses who routinely testify in asbestos litigation reside outside of Pennsylvania. Those non-resident forensic witnesses will be equally inconvenienced by a trial in any county in this Commonwealth. Finally, while distance alone is not dispositive, it is inherently part of the equation. Judge Nealon examined the detailed information presented in the record in Horst v. Union Carbide and held that the defendants did not meet their burden of proving that the chosen forum was oppressive or vexatious to them. As a result, Judge Nealon denied the Motion to Transfer Venue based on forum non conveniens. So what is the takeaway from all of these cases? In spite of an initial panic by plaintiffs counsel when Bratic v. Rubendall was decided, the rules remain much the same. Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator is still the law of the land in Pennsylvania. The plaintiff has a right to select the forum for litigation and the trial court must give deference to the plaintiff s choice. A defendant seeking to transfer venue based on Rule 1006(d)(1) bears a heavy burden requiring proof that the plaintiff s chosen forum would be oppressive or vexatious. A trial court must consider a number of factors, with no single factor being dispositive to the petition to transfer. And, yes, distance matters. Attorneys in Philadelphia should be able to successfully resist a petition to transfer to Bucks, Chester, Delaware or Montgomery Counties, but we should think long and hard before attempting to sue in Philadelphia on a cause of action that occurred hundreds of miles away. 1 Bratic v. Rubendall, 626 Pa. 550, 99 A.3d 1 (2014).
5 2 Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 549 Pa. 200, 701 A.2d 156 (1997) (where the court held that two cases filed in Philadelphia County should not have been transferred to Bucks County, because it would not be oppressive or vexatious for defendants in Bucks County to have to litigate the claims in Philadelphia). 3 Bratic supra, 626 Pa. at 566, 99 A.3d at Id. 5 Okkerse v. Howe, 521 Pa. 509, 556 A.2d 827, 832 (1989), cited with approval in Bratic, 99 A.3d at 6. 6 Fessler v. Watchtown Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al. and Scott v. Menna & Wawa, Inc., 2015 PA Super 274, 2015 WL Fessler, supra., at page 7 of opinion. 8 Zappala v. James Lewis Group, 982 A.2d 512 (Pa.Super. 2009). 9 Counsel are urged to read the discussion in Zappala II concerning forum shopping, noting the distinction drawn between legitimate forum shopping, which is appropriate and approved, and improper forum shopping, which is not permitted. 10 Fessler, supra, at page 9 of opinion. 11 Jung Lee v. Thrower, 102 A.3d 1018 (Pa.Super. 2014). 12 Jung Lee v. Thrower, supra., 102 A.3d at See, e.g., Hoose v. Jefferson Home Health Care, Inc., 754 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super. 2000) (reversing transfer from Philadelphia to Delaware County); Johns v. First Union Corporation, 777 A.2d 489 (Pa.Super. 2001) (reversing transfer from Philadelphia to Bucks County); Catagnus v. Allstate Insurance Company, 864 A.2d 1259, 1266 (Pa.Super. 2004) (reversing transfer from Philadelphia to Bucks County); Wood v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 829 A.2d 707 (Pa.Super. 2003) (affirming a transfer from Philadelphia to Bradford County); Raymond v. Park Terrace Apartments, 882 A.2d 518 (Pa.Super. 2005) (order transferring litigation from Philadelphia to Delaware County reversed); Zappala v. James Lewis Group, 982 A.2d 512 (Pa.Super.2009) (reversing transfer from Philadelphia to Chester County); and Hunter v. Shire US, Inc., 992 A.2d 891, 897 (Pa.Super.2010) (affirming denial of transfer from Philadelphia to Chester County because they are adjacent to each other and are readily accessible in a short amount of travel time ). 14 Bratic, supra, 626 Pa. at 564, 99 A.3d at See, e.g., Passodelis v. Erie Insurance Co., 2014 WL , Sept. 16, 2014 Memorandum Opinion (affirming a transfer from Philadelphia to Allegheny County); Capper v. Sharma Equity, 2015 WL , Feb 24, 2015 Memorandum Opinion (affirming transfer from Philadelphia to Lehigh County); Keefer v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 2015 WL Mar 4, 2015 Memorandum Opinion (affirming transfer from Philadelphia to Cumberland County); and Lytle v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, 2015 WL , Mar 24, 2015 Memorandum Opinion (affirming transfer from Philadelphia to Blair County, and noting at footnote 5 that: Instantly the record reveals that Philadelphia is 230 miles from Blair County. Not only is this 2.3 times further than in Bratic, for reference, we note that it is more than twice the
6 distance from Philadelphia to New York, NY, and almost 100 miles further than Philadelphia to Washington, DC ). 16 Fishel v. Christian-Baker Company, Philadelphia C.P., No (J. Massiah Jackson, Nov 18, 2014) (Order with opinion attached as Court Exhibit A ). 17 Horst v. Union Carbide Corp., 2015 WL , (C.P. Lackawanna, No. 15 CV 1903) (J. Nealon, Aug. 3, 2015). Copyright 2016, Dale G. Larrimore, Esquire First published May 2016, in The Verdict, Vol , Issue 5, published by the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, Philadelphia, PA
2014 PA Super 240. Appeal from the Order Entered August 9, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s):
2014 PA Super 240 HYUN JUNG JOANN LEE Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA BOWER LEWIS THROWER, GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY, PENNSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY STATE UNIVERSITY, SASAKI ASSOCIATES, AND GILBANE,
More information[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT. CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, STEVENS, JJ.
[J-62-2013] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, STEVENS, JJ. ALEXANDER BRATIC AND JOSEPH PROKO, v. Appellees CHARLES W. RUBENDALL,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NIA BOOTH AND TONI BOOTH Appellants IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AIMCO D/B/A CUMBERLAND COURT APARTMENTS AND AIMCO AND CUMBERLAND COURT
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 BRANDON GASS, AS ADMINISTRATOR AND ADMINISTRATOR AD PROSEQUENDUM FOR THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY TALTON, DECEASED, AND ALICIA GASS, INDIVIDUALLY v.
More information: : Appellee : No EDA 2001
2003 PA Super 268 JASON WOOD, SR. AND HOLLY WOOD, : H/W, : : Appellants : v. : : E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND: COMPANY, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : Appellee : No. 1312 EDA 2001 Appeal from
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
J.A31046/13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PAUL R. BLACK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : : CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., : : Appellant : : No. 3058 EDA 2012 Appeal
More information2018 PA Super 6 OPINION BY BOWES, J.: FILED JANUARY 18, This is a wrongful death and survival action sounding in medical
2018 PA Super 6 PAIGE MOODY AND KHALIL TOMLINSON, CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF GIANNA TOMLINSON, DECEASED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL-CEDAR CREST, LEHIGH
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DENNIS MILSTEIN Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THE TOWER AT OAK HILL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AND LOWER MERION TOWNSHIP APPEAL
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Abdur Raheem Muhammad, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2116 C.D. 2015 : Submitted: October 21, 2016 Arthur Carl Schwotzer; Gregg A. : Schwotzer and the Estate of : Gregg
More informationPhiladelphia Tort Litigation: Forum Shopping and Venue Reform By Mark A. Behrens
Philadelphia Tort Litigation: Forum Shopping and Venue Reform By Mark A. Behrens pennsylvania may 2012 ABOUT THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is an organization
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JANE DOE, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF JOHN DOE, A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant THE WOODS SCHOOLS, CRESTWOOD SERVICES,
More informationI hereby certify that County conducts its support proceedings in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. No..
Rule 1910.10. Alternative Hearing Procedures. (a) The action shall proceed as prescribed by Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.11 unless the court by local rule adopts the alternative hearing procedure of Pa.R.C.P. No.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Andre Powell, an incapacitated person, by Yvonne Sherrill, Guardian v. No. 2117 C.D. 2008 James Scott, George Krapf, Jr. and Sons, Inc., The Pep Boys - Manny,
More informationRule Alternative Hearing Procedures for Partial Custody or Visitation Actions.
Rule 1915.4-1. Alternative Hearing Procedures for Partial Custody or Visitation Actions. (a) [Except as provided in subdivision (b),] A custody action shall proceed as prescribed by Rule 1915.4-3 unless
More information2014 PA Super 135 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
2014 PA Super 135 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, A ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY v. THOMAS W. BUDZOWSKI, INDIVIDUALLY, AND THOMAS W. BUDZOWSKI, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GLORIA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Doe et al v. Kanakuk Ministries et al Doc. 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, Individually and as Next Friends of JOHN DOE I, a Minor, VS.
More informationIS GOOD CAUSE FOR VENUE DECISIONS LIMITED TO CONVENIENCE ISSUES. Gary A. Bryant Willcox & Savage P.C.
IS GOOD CAUSE FOR VENUE DECISIONS LIMITED TO CONVENIENCE ISSUES Gary A. Bryant Willcox & Savage P.C. Introduction Depending on your perspective, forum shopping is either an abuse or an art. It is no accident
More informationILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Dowd v. Berndtson, 2012 IL App (1st) 122376 Appellate Court Caption LISA DOWD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCOTT A. BERNDTSON and SCOTT A. BERNDTSON, P.C., an Illinois
More information2013 PA Super 22 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellee No. 872 EDA 2012
2013 PA Super 22 HILDA CID, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, Appellee No. 872 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Entered February 22, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas
More informationSubpart B-1. TORT CLAIMS 111. TORT CLAIMS LITIGATION CHAPTER 111. TORT CLAIMS LITIGATION
Ch. 111 TORT CLAIMS LITIGATION 37 111.1 Subpart B-1. TORT CLAIMS Chap. Sec. 111. TORT CLAIMS LITIGATION... 111.1 Sec. 111.1. Service of process. 111.2. [Reserved]. 111.3. [Reserved]. 111.4. Venue. CHAPTER
More informationPART VII. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
PART VII. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS Chap. Sec. 201. UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM... 201.1 205. ELECTRODATA PROCESSING OPERATIONS... 205.1 207. TRANSMITTING REMITTANCES... 207.1 209. PENNSYLVANIA
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :
J-A25019-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DEBRA GRIFFIN Appellant v. ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 392 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Order
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY. Plaintiff, ) ) C.A. NO. 05C JRS (ASB) v. )
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION ) ) CONNIE JUNE HOUSEMAN-RILEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) C.A. NO. 05C-06-295-JRS (ASB) v. ) ) METROPOLITAN
More informationAppeal from the Order entered on April 25, 2003 in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Civil Division, No
2004 PA Super 24 GARY HARRIS, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : HERBERT BRILL, WILLIAM T. JORDEN, : THOMAS DANA WATSON and : GENE RUMSEY, : : Appellees : No. 826 WDA 2003 Appeal
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES INC., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant DEBORAH YAMBOR, v. Appellee No. 1287 MDA 2015 Appeal from
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 57 EDA 2014
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD DOUGLAS JANDA Appellant No. 57 EDA 2014 Appeal from the
More informationPA Courts Expand Use of Video Conferencing, Saving $21 Million Annually in Defendant Transportation Costs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BROADCAST EDITORS NOTE: For audio actualities from the Chief Justice click here. PA Courts Expand Use of Video Conferencing, Saving $21 Million Annually in Defendant Transportation
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : Appellees : No. 25 EDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 GEORGE HARTWELL AND ERMA HARTWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF ZACHARY D. HARTWELL, DECEASED, Appellants v. BARNABY S
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : No EDA 2016 : Appellant :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 SUSANNE WALLACE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JANENE WALLACE, DEC. COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTERS, INC., v. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 7/20/2009 :
[Cite as Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Allstate Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 2009-Ohio-3540.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., : Plaintiff-Appellant,
More information2015 PA Super 8. Appeal from the Order Dated October 10, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s):
2015 PA Super 8 GUADALUPE REINOSO & EDMUNDO DOMINGUEZ, H/W IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant V. HERITAGE WARMINSTER SPE LLC V. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. T/A KOHL'S AND LOTS & US, INC.
More informationAppeal from the ORDER Entered July 22, 2004, in the Court of Common Pleas of NORTHAMPTON County, CIVIL, No. C-48-CV
2005 PA Super 144 DONNA BILOTTI-KERRICK, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF : PENNSYLVANIA MARIE MOLLICA, DECEASED; AND : DONNA BILOTTI-KERRICK, IN HER : OWN RIGHT; AND MARK A.
More informationTrial And Appeals In Consolidated Cases: Civil Practice After Kincy v. Petro
Trial And Appeals In Consolidated Cases: Civil Practice After Kincy v. Petro By JACOB C. LEHMAN,* Philadelphia County Member of the Pennsylvania Bar INTRODUCTION....................... 75 RULE OF CIVIL
More informationSuperior Court s Year in Statistics Calendar Year 2013 Office of the Prothonotary/Office of the Reporter
1 SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES AND DEPARTMENT HEADS Judges of the Superior Court - 2013 Department Heads PRESIDENT JUDGE JOHN T. BENDER PRESIDENT JUDGE EMERITUS KATE FORD ELLIOTT JUDGE MARY JANE BOWES PRESIDENT
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 43 Filed: 09/08/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:233
Case: 1:17-cv-03155 Document #: 43 Filed: 09/08/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:233 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:12-cv DN Document 12 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:12-cv-00076-DN Document 12 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION R. WAYNE KLEIN, the Court-Appointed Receiver of U.S. Ventures,
More informationLancaster Bar Association Federal Redistricting Committee Report & Recommendation, January 2017
Lancaster Bar Association Federal Redistricting Committee Report & Recommendation, January 2017 The suggestion has been made to seek the transfer of Lancaster County, through federal legislation, from
More informationJ-A PA Super 112 PENNSYLVANIA
2017 PA Super 112 DAVID G. OBERDICK v. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIZECHAHN GATEWAY, LLC, TRIZEC R&E HOLDINGS, LLC, SUCCESSOR-BY- MERGER TO TRIZECHAHN GATEWAY, LLC, TRIZEC HOLDINGS II, INC.,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF THE : CITY OF MONONGAHELA and THE : CITY OF MONONGAHELA : : v. : No. 1720 C.D. 1999 : Argued: February 7, 2000 CARROLL TOWNSHIP AUTHORITY
More informationMurder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter are defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. Murder statistics tend to be the most reliable of all index crime statistics as most murders do not go
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TIMOTHY M. THOMAS Appellant No. 2199 EDA 2013 Appeal from the
More informationAppeal from the Order entered July 15, 2005 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No August Term 2004
2006 PA Super 231 KELLY RAMBO AND PHILIP J. BERG, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ESQUIRE, : PENNSYLVANIA Appellants : : v. : : RONALD B. GREENE, M.D. AND : RONALD B. GREENE, M.D., P.C., : Appellees : No. 2126
More informationAppeal from the Orders dated January 16, 2002, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No. 822 October Term, 2001.
2003 PA Super 414 DOLORES BARBARA KROSNOWSKI, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF : PENNSYLVANIA THADDEUS KROSNOWSKI, Deceased, : Appellant : : v. : : STEPHEN D. WARD, BRUCE G. ROY,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
ALYSSA DANIELSON-HOLLAND; JAY HOLLAND, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 12, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellees No WDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 TANJI CURTIS, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, TORSTEN OVE AND JOHN BLOCK, Appellees No. 1560 WDA
More informationActions at Law / Civil Action / Pleadings
Local Rule 1018.1 Notice to Defend Form. Actions at Law / Civil Action / Pleadings (1) The agency to be named in the notice to defend accompanying complaints filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 GEORGE ANTONAS Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SOCRATES VASSILIADIS AND E. VASSILIADIS No. 3502 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Order
More information2010 TRENDS. Aggravated Assault
Aggravated assault is the unlawful attack by one person (or persons) upon a victim with the intent to inflict great bodily injury. It is usually accomplished by the use of a weapon; or when a person (or
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationII. Civil Judiciary: Names and Addresses of Judges, Secretaries, and the Manner in Which Judges Are Assigned to Civil Cases...
Table of Contents Bucks County Civil Practice... Bucks 1 Carol A. Shelly, Esquire I. Civil Court Administration, Organization and Court Calendar... Bucks 13 A. Court Personnel... Bucks 13 B. Court Calendar...
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 10-0526 444444444444 IN RE UNITED SCAFFOLDING, INC., RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationPennsylvania s Still-Lagging Economic Growth
Pennsylvania s Still-Lagging Economic Growth PA job and unemployment trends through April 2014 By Natalie Sabadish and Stephen Herzenberg Keystone Research Center 412 North 3 rd St., Harrisburg, PA 17101
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P APPEAL OF: JAMES BONELLI No. 667 EDA 2015
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ACERO PRECISION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES BONELLI AND VISTEK MEDICAL, INC. v. APPEAL OF: JAMES BONELLI No. 667 EDA 2015 Appeal
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 THEA MAE FARROW, Appellant v. YMCA OF UPPER MAIN LINE, INC., Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1296 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: March 23, 2018 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
More informationTrials And Appeals In Consolidated Cases: The Landscape Post Malanchuk
Trials And Appeals In Consolidated Cases: The Landscape Post Malanchuk By JACOB C. LEHMAN, 1 Philadelphia County Member of the Pennsylvania Bar TABLE OF CONTENTS HOW DID WE GET HERE: THE WORLD BEFORE KINCY.....................
More informationGOOD WILL HUNTING CLUB, INC., : NO Plaintiff : vs. : : CIVIL ACTION : JAMES R. SHIPMAN, : OPINION AND VERDICT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GOOD WILL HUNTING CLUB, INC., : NO. 16-0819 Plaintiff : vs. : : CIVIL ACTION : JAMES R. SHIPMAN, : Defendant : Non-jury Trial OPINION AND VERDICT
More informationPennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen s Clubs PFSC
Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen s Clubs PFSC PFSC HISTORY Founded in 1932 by five fishermen who were disturbed by the increasing pollution of Pennsylvania s streams and rivers Concerned with regulations
More informationPatent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ. Law360, New
More informationTHE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LIONS CLUBS MULTIPLE DISTRICT 14 (PENNSYLVANIA) CONSTITUTION and BY LAWS AND POLICY MANUAL
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LIONS CLUBS MULTIPLE DISTRICT 14 (PENNSYLVANIA) CONSTITUTION and BY LAWS AND POLICY MANUAL ORIGINALLY ADOPTED STATE CONVENTION HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA JUNE 2, 1970 TOTALLY
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 14-8117 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, RECORDER OF DEEDS, by and through NANCY J. BECKER, in her official capacity as the Recorder of Deeds
More informationDON T LITIGATE IF YOU DON T KNOW ALL THE RULES
Litigation Management: Driving Great Results DON T LITIGATE IF YOU DON T KNOW ALL THE RULES Chandler Bailey Lightfoot Franklin & White -- 117 -- Creative Avenues to Federal Jurisdiction J. Chandler Bailey
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No MDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDREW JIMMY AYALA Appellant No. 1348 MDA 2013 Appeal from the
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 983 MDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 CAROLINE AND CHRISTOPHER FARR, HER HUSBAND, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants BLOOMN THAI, AND UNITED WATER, INC., v. Appellee
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE COMPANY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ALBERT TIDMAN III AND LINDA D. TIDMAN AND CHRISTOPHER E. FALLON APPEAL OF:
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P APPEAL OF: RYAN KERWIN No. 501 EDA 2014
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: RYAN KERWIN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: RYAN KERWIN No. 501 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Order of January 24, 2014 In
More information2018 PA Super 25 : : : : : : : : :
2018 PA Super 25 MARC BLUCAS AND RYAN BLUCAS v. PERRY AGIOVLASITIS Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2448 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered June 29, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas
More informationThe 2010 Amendments to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Brief Reminder
ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Section Annual Conference April 18 20, 2012: Deposition Practice in Complex Cases: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly The to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia Metro Task Force : James D. Schneller, : Appellant : No. 2146 C.D. 2012 : Submitted: July 5, 2013 v. : : Conshohocken Borough Council : BEFORE: HONORABLE
More information2017 PA Super 184 OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 13, Jamar Oliver ( Plaintiff ) appeals from the judgment, 1
2017 PA Super 184 JAMAR OLIVER Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SAMUEL IRVELLO Appellee No. 3036 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 12, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 09/14/2012 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationTHE COURTS. Title 249 PHILADELPHIA RULES
Title 249 PHILADELPHIA RULES PHILADELPHIA COUNTY Final Day Backward Program Procedure for Disposition of Major Jury Cases Filed on and After July 5, 1993 and Before January 2, 1995; General Court Regulation
More informationNew York Central Mutual Insura v. Margolis Edelstein
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-1-2016 New York Central Mutual Insura v. Margolis Edelstein Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More information09 MAY :46 pm. 715 Twining Road, Suite Park Avenue, 29th Floor Dresher, PA New York, NY : : : : : : : : : : : : CLASS ACTION
09 MAY 2016 0346 pm K. EDWARDS Peter Winebrake (PA Attorney No. 80496) Justin M. Swartz* R. Andrew Santillo (PA Attorney No. 93041) Melissa L. Stewart* Mark J. Gottesfeld (PA Attorney No. 307752) *pro
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA GSP Management Company, : Appellant : : v. : No. 40 C.D. 2015 : Argued: September 17, 2015 Duncansville Municipal Authority : BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. HARRY MICHAEL SZEKERES Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 306 MDA 2018 Appeal from
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JANET ADAMS AND ROBERT ADAMS, HER HUSBAND v. Appellants DAVID A. REESE AND KAREN C. REESE, Appellees IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No.
More informationCase 2:12-cv JD Document 50 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:12-cv-03783-JD Document 50 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHERIE LEATHERMAN, both : CIVIL ACTION individually and as the
More informationTHE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LIONS CLUBS MULTIPLE DISTRICT 14 (PENNSYLVANIA) CONSTITUTION and BY LAWS AND POLICY MANUAL
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LIONS CLUBS MULTIPLE DISTRICT 14 (PENNSYLVANIA) CONSTITUTION and BY LAWS AND POLICY MANUAL ORIGINALLY ADOPTED STATE CONVENTION HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA JUNE 2, 1970 TOTALLY
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carl Whitehead, : Appellant : : v. : No. 739 C.D. 2015 : Submitted: December 24, 2015 Allegheny County, : Pennsylvania District Attorney : Stephen A. Zappala,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: December 22, 2017 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
More information[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
[J-62-2009] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT FREDERICK S. AND LYNN SUMMERS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, v. Appellees CERTAINTEED CORPORATION AND UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, RICHARD NYBECK, v.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TechRadium, Inc. v. AtHoc, Inc. et al Doc. 121 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION TECHRADIUM, INC., Plaintiff, v. ATHOC, INC., et al., Defendants. NO.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS AMERICORP FINANCIAL, L.L.C., d/b/a PARATA FINANCIAL COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED January 16, 2014 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 312522 Oakland Circuit Court BACDAMM INVESTMENT GROUP,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DAVID MILLER Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY PUCCIO AND JOSEPHINE PUCCIO, HIS WIFE, ANGELINE J. PUCCIO, NRT PITTSBURGH,
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION PAUL AND LINDA STOSS, : INDIVIDUALLY AND AS H/W, : Plaintiffs : : v. : No. 10-0559 : SINGER FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND : PAUL SINGER,
More informationTHE COURTS. Title 231 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Title 231 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE [231 PA. CODE CH. 4000] Amendment of Note to Rule 4009.21(a); No. 302; Civil Procedural Rules; Doc. No. 5 THE COURTS subpoena under Rule 4009.21 by which the production
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 302 WDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. VICTOR R. CAPELLE JR., Appellant No. 302 WDA 2012 Appeal from
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : SEAN EUGENE TAPP, : : Appellant : No.
2010 PA Super 111 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : SEAN EUGENE TAPP, : : Appellant : No. 1507 MDA 2009 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered
More information(1) the defendant waives the presence of the law enforcement officer in open court on the record;
RULE 462. TRIAL DE NOVO. (A) When a defendant appeals after conviction by an issuing authority in any summary proceeding, upon the filing of the transcript and other papers by the issuing authority, the
More informationRULE 3. [Reserved] CHAPTER III. PETITION PRACTICE AND PLEADING
PETITION PRACTICE AND PLEADING 231 Rule 3.1 Rule 3.1. [Reserved]. 3.2 3.6. [Reserved]. 3.7. [Reserved]. Rule 3.1. [Reserved]. RULE 3. [Reserved] The provisions of this Rule 3.1 amended December 10, 2013,
More informationTHE RULES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE RULES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA As Filed With The Pennsylvania Department of State Secretary of the Commonwealth January 24, 1994 Amended March 21, 1994 Amended June
More informationBy Order of the Court, Judge Joseph N. Camacho
By Order of the Court, Judge Joseph N. Camacho FOR PUBLICATION E-FILED CNMI SUPERIOR COURT E-filed: Aug 0 0:0PM Clerk Review: N/A Filing ID: Case Number: -0-CV N/A IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 426 MDA 2014
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 REST HAVEN YORK Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CAROL A. DEITZ Appellee No. 426 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Entered February
More information: : : : Appellant : : v. : : DANA CORPORATION, : : Appellee : No EDA 2005
2008 PA Super 283 DONNA BEDNAR, ADMX. OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES BEDNAR, AND WIDOW IN HER OWN RIGHT, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. DANA CORPORATION, Appellee No. 3503 EDA 2005 Appeal from
More informationPENNSYLVANIA STATE CONSTABLES ASSOCIATION, INC. BYLAWS
PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONSTABLES ASSOCIATION, INC. BYLAWS TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I Purposes... 3 ARTICLE II Corporate Office.. 3 ARTICLE III Membership. 4 ARTICLE IV Subordinate Units... 6 ARTICLE V Dues..
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia v. No. 767 C.D. 2017 SUBMITTED March 2, 2018 Christopher A. Barosh, Appellant City of Philadelphia v. No. 768 C.D. 2017 Christopher A. Barosh,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MICHELLE BRAUN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND SAM'S CLUB, AN OPERATING
More informationAppeal from the PCRA Order June 20, 2001 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal, No. 977 CA 1985
2002 PA Super 115 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Appellant : PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : : JOHN MARSHALL PAYNE, III, : Appellee : No. 1224 MDA 2001 Appeal from the PCRA Order June 20,
More informationDO NOT PUBLISH XX MAY BE PUBLISHED
DO NOT PUBLISH XX MAY BE PUBLISHED Murray v ARS of Lanc., et al. No. CI-12-04140/Code 96 Cullen, J. May 28, 2014 Civil Preliminary Objections Legal Sufficiency Corporate Negligence When ruling on preliminary
More information