Superior Court 5/29/2008 - KEVIN HOGRELIUS v. HILARY MARTIN

KEVIN HOGRELIUS v. HILARY MARTIN
No. 2349 EDA 207 2008 PA Super 111 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/29/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on August 17, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Civil Division, No. 05-03568
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BOWES AND COLVILLE,* JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Kevin Hogrelius (“Father”) appeals from the order entered on August 17, 2007, permitting Hilary Martin (“Mother”) to relocate with the parties’ daughter, Alisia Marie Hogrelius, from Chester County to McLean, Virginia. We affirm.


With any child custody case, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child. Landis v. Landis, 869 A.2d 1003, 1011 (Pa.Super. 2005). This standard requires a case-by-case assessment of all of the factors that may legitimately affect the “physical, intellectual, moral and
spiritual well-being” of the child. Id. (citations omitted). As we previously explained, “[t]here is no black letter formula that easily resolves relocation disputes; rather, custody disputes are delicate issues that must be handled on a case by case basis.” Baldwin v. Baldwin, 710 A.2d 610, 614 (Pa.Super. 1998).

Father’s appeal challenges the trial court’s determination pursuant to Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa.Super. 1990), that Mother demonstrated relocation was in Alisia’s best interest. First, Father asserts that relocation would not substantially improve Alisia’s quality of life. Next,
Father argues that Mother’s proposed alternative custody arrangements are inadequate. For the following reasons, we disagree with both contentions.

As this Court recently reiterated, “[W]hen a custody case includes a request by one of the parents to relocate with the child, then the best interest analysis must incorporate the three factors originally summarized in Gruber[.]” Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724, 728 (Pa.Super. 2007). Those factors consider:

(1) the potential advantages of the proposed move and the
likelihood that the move would substantially improve the quality
of life for the custodial parent and the children and is not the
result of a momentary whim on the part of the custodial parent;

(2) the integrity of the motives of both the custodial and
noncustodial parent in either seeking the move or seeking to
prevent it; [and]

(3) the availability of realistic, substitute visitation
arrangements which will adequately foster an ongoing
relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent.

Id. (quoting Collins v. Collins, 897 A.2d 466, 471 (Pa.Super. 2006)).

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 4/28/08 - RANDY GLOVER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND BRUNO KRZACZEK

RANDY GLOVER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND BRUNO KRZACZEK
No. 1070 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 110 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/28/2008
Appeal from the Order entered April 10, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil, No. 000015 August Term, 2006
Before: LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, JJ. and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Randy Glover appeals from the order entered April 10, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granting summary judgment to defendants Bruno Krzaczek and State Farm Insurance. Glover filed suit against Krzaczek claiming Krzaczek was driving a car that struck Glover, who was a pedestrian at the time. Glover sued State Farm, Krzaczek’s insurer, for failure to fully pay first party benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment based upon the statute of limitations – specifically, Glover brought suit against Krzaczek, personally, after Krzaczek had died. The proper party should have been the Estate of Krzaczek. Because the estate and the person are separate entities and Glover never sued the estate, the trial court found the statute of limitations had run and dismissed all claims. After a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, the official record and relevant law, we affirm the summary judgment granted in favor of Krzaczek, but reverse the summary judgment granted in favor of State Farm because the statute of limitations for a claim involving first party benefits is four years. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1721(a). Thus, the statute of limitations has not run as to State Farm. A full discussion follows.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - 5/28/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KORATICH’S GOLDEN RAIL, INC.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KORATICH’S GOLDEN RAIL, INC.
No. 524 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 112 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/28/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence imposed February 12, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County at No. 294, Criminal Session, 2005
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BENDER and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Koratich’s Golden Rail, Inc. (“the Golden Rail” or “Appellant”) is a corporate liquor licensee which appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following a conviction by a jury of furnishing liquor or malt brewed beverage to a minor under 21 years of age.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 5/23/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DWAYNE FLOWERS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DWAYNE FLOWERS
No. 1173 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 109 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/23/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 25, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny CountyCriminal Division at No. CC No. 2003-05603
Before: BENDER, BOWES and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dwayne Flowers appeals the judgment of sentence of four to ten years’ incarceration imposed following revocation of probation for technical violations. Flowers’s original sentence followed a plea of nolo contendere to charges of Statutory Sexual Assault, Indecent Assault, and Endangering the Welfare of Children, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3122.1, 3126, 4304 (respectively). Flowers contends that the trial court erred in imposing sentence without ordering a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) and explaining on the record its reasons for refusing to do so. Given the limited nature of the court’s colloquy with the defendant at the plea and sentencing hearings, we find Flowers’s claim meritorious. Accordingly, we vacate his judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 5/22/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. MAURICE SMITH

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. MAURICE SMITH
No. 1132 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 108 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/22/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in theCourt of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0509631-2005
Before: KLEIN, TAMILIA and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Maurice Smith (DOB April 12, 1988) appeals from the March 29, 2007, judgment of sentence of five to twelve years imprisonment imposed after he was found guilty, nonjury, of robbing a woman at gunpoint, stealing her cell phone and $15. Appellant was convicted of robbery, criminal conspiracy, firearms not be carried without a license, possessing a firearm by a minor, and carrying a firearm in public streets of Philadelphia. Appellant, who was one month shy of age 17 at the time of the March 12, 2005, crime, argues only that the court erred by denying his motion for decertification.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 5/21/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TROY WORMLEY

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TROY WORMLEY
No. 2468 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 107 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/21/2008
Appeal from the Order entered August 2, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCriminal at No(s): M.C. #0501-4362 M.C. #06-003682
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from an order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying Appellant’s Writ of Certiorari in which he argued the Municipal Court erred in failing to suppress evidence against him. Under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision of Commonwealth v. Dunlap, ___ Pa.___, 941 A.2d 671 (2007), we are constrained to vacate judgment of sentence.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 5/21/08 - DOLORES TARZIA, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF COSIMO TARZIA, DECEASED v.AMERICAN STANDARD

DOLORES TARZIA, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF COSIMO TARZIA, DECEASED v.AMERICAN STANDARD
No. 3053 EDA 2005 2008 PA Super 105 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/21/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered October 19, 2005In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Civil, No. 1665 February Term, 2003
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN,LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, BENDER, GANTMAN and PANELLA, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Plaintiff Dolores Tarzia appeals from an order granting summary judgment against her and in favor of Defendant American Standard, Inc. in her lawsuit filed alleging that her late husband, Cosimo Tarzia (“Tarzia”) died of lung cancer caused by exposure to certain asbestos containing products. Specifically, the relevant claim here is that the lung cancer was in part caused from asbestos exposure to “Cobra” railroad brake linings through his employment as a Conrail railroad worker from 1976 through 1985. The trial court found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate causality. American Standard also claimed there was insufficient evidence to show that Tarzia was exposed to Cobra brake linings distributed by American Standard, We agree that there was insufficient evidence to show causality and therefore affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 5/21/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM GRIFFITH

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM GRIFFITH
No. 1065 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 106 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/21/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 17, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne CountyCriminal at No(s): CP-40-CR-0003158-2006
Before: STEVENS, PANELLA, and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County on May 17, 2007, following Appellee’s plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, pursuant to 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). Herein, the Commonwealth contends that the court imposed an illegal sentence by failing to comply with applicable mandatory sentencing provisions. We agree; consequently, we vacate the sentence and remand for proceedings consistent with this decision.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 5/19/08 - RITA GRIFFIN, AN INDIVIDUAL v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER-BRADDOCK HOSPITAL

RITA GRIFFIN, AN INDIVIDUAL v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER-BRADDOCK HOSPITAL
No. 544 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 104 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/19/2008
Appeal from the Order February 27, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny CountyCivil Division at No. GD No. 04-016870
Before: BENDER, BOWES and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center – Braddock Hospital (“Hospital”) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Rita Griffin following a jury trial in this medical malpractice case. For the following reasons, we reverse.


Hospital sets forth the following “Statement of the Questions Involved”
in its brief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a):

I. WHETHER JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT MUST BE GRANTED TO DEFENDANT WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT OFFERED HIS CAUSATION OPINION WITH 51 PERCENT PROBABILITY, THUS FAILING TO PROVIDE THE REQUISITE DEGREE OF MEDICAL CERTAINTY; AND WHERE THE ONLY POTENTIAL FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S CAUSATION THEORY WAS A HEARSAY NOTE RULED INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL, THUS RENDERING PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S PRE-RECORDED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY LACKING IN FOUNDATION?

II. WHETHER, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW TRIAL MUST BE GRANTED WHERE THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE INJURY AS ONE WHICH WOULD NOT OCCUR ABSENT NEGLIGENCE; FAILED TO ELIMINATE OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES; AND
ADDITIONALLY OFFERED A SPECIFIC THORY OF NEGLIGENCE?

III. WHETHER, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REMITTITUR MUST BE GRANTED WHERE THE JURY VERDICT DEVIATED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM WHAT COULD BE REASONABLE
COMPENSATION?

Superior Court 5/15/08 - MILTON KENNETH BENNER v. PAUL H. SILVIS

MILTON KENNETH BENNER v. PAUL H. SILVIS
No. 1062 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 103 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/15/2008
Appeal from the Order entered May 25, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Centre County, Civil Division at No. 2004-2599
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., DONOHUE, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Appellant Milton Kenneth Benner (“Benner”) appeals from the order dated May 25, 2007 denying his motion for post-trial relief from the trial court’s verdict dated January 8, 2007 granting Appellee Paul H. Silvis (“Silvis”) $26,402.90 in damages pursuant to the Private Road Act, 36 P.S. §§ 2731–2763. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse and remand.

Superior Court 5/14/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD LLOYD

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD LLOYD
No. 324 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 101 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/14/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 10, 2007,In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,Criminal Division at No. CP-23-CR-0001297-2006.
Before: BOWES, DONOHUE, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Appellant Richard Lloyd appeals the judgment of sentence entered on January 10, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, following his bench-trial conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI-alcohol), driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked (DUI-related), aggravated assault, resisting arrest, fleeing and eluding the police, and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine). Upon review, we affirm.

Superior Court 5/14/08 - LEBANON COUNTY CHILDREN & YOUTH SERVICES v. TIMMY M. WAGNER

LEBANON COUNTY CHILDREN & YOUTH SERVICES v. TIMMY M. WAGNER
No. 1788 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 102 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/14/2008
Appeal from the Order October 10, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
Before: PANELLA, SHOGAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Appellant, Timmy M. Wagner, appeals from the order entered on October 10, 2007, in the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas directing him to submit to genetic testing to determine the paternity of T.L.W., a minor. Because Children and Youth Services stands in the shoes of the natural mother for the purposes of estoppel and there was no evidentiary hearing, we vacate and remand for an estoppel hearing.

Superior Court 5/13/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THOMAS W. GRAHAM

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THOMAS W. GRAHAM
No. 1498 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 100 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/13/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered in theCourt of Common Pleas of Butler County,Criminal Division, No(s): C.A. No. 1947 of 2004
Before: BENDER, BOWES and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Concurring Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Thomas W. Graham appeals the November 7, 2005, aggregate judgment of sentence of four to eight years imprisonment, restitution, costs and fees imposed after a jury convicted him of one count each of arson, burglary, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, theft by unlawful taking, and receiving stolen property. The charges arose after it was alleged appellant had burned down a home under construction and nearing completion. Following a subsequent hearing, an amended Order of restitution was entered on March 9, 2006, directing appellant to pay restitution totaling $374,437.37. Post-trial motions were denied by operation of law on July 7, 2006, and a timely notice of appeal was filed August 4, 2006. Appellant was ordered to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal and, following several extensions, a timely statement was filed on December 22, 2006.

Superior Court 5/12/08 - STACEY M. WIELAND v. RUSSELL WIELAND v. PRESLEY T. DILLON, JR.

STACEY M. WIELAND v. RUSSELL WIELAND v. PRESLEY T. DILLON, JR. APPEAL OF: PRESLEY T. DILLON, JR
No. 1381 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 98 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/9/2008
Appeal from the Order July 2, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Domestic Relations at No. 2097 of DR 2006
Before: BENDER, BOWES and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Presley T. Dillon, Jr., appeals from the July 2, 2007 order that dismissed his petition to intervene in the support action filed by Stacey M. Wieland (Mother) against Russell Wieland, Mother’s ex-husband, for the support of Presley Harry Dillon. The July 2, 2007 order also dismissed Russell Wieland’s preliminary objections to Mother’s support complaint. We affirm.

Superior Court 5/12/08 - IN RE: ESTATE OF PAUL J. SAUERS, III, DECEASED

IN RE: ESTATE OF PAUL J. SAUERS, III, DECEASED APPEAL OF: JODIE L. SAUERS
No. 1060 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 97 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/9/2008
Appeal from the Order of May 16, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Orphans Court Division at No. 67-06-01327
Before: ORIE MELVIN, ALLEN AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
This is an appeal from an order which, in effect, granted Appellee’s Petition for Citation (“Petition”). We vacate and reverse.

Superior Court 5/12/08 - DIANE L. FASTUCA v. L. W. MOLNAR & ASSOCIATES, LOUIS W. MOLNAR, JR. and MARY LOU MOLNAR, INDIVIDUALLY and T/D/B/A L.W. MOLNAR

DIANE L. FASTUCA v. L. W. MOLNAR & ASSOCIATES, LOUIS W. MOLNAR, JR. and MARY LOU MOLNAR, INDIVIDUALLY and T/D/B/A L.W. MOLNAR & ASSOCIATES
No. 1226 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 99 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/9/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered March 21, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No. GD 03-22790
Before: BENDER, BOWES and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Louis W. Molnar, Jr. and Mary Lou Molnar, individually and trading and doing business as L.W. Molnar & Associates, and L.W. Molnar & Associates (the Molnars) appeal the trial court’s order terminating common law arbitration of claims raised in the underlying civil action by Diane L. Fastuca. The Molnars contend that the trial court abused its discretion in attempting to terminate the arbitration or alter the findings of the arbitrator prior to entry of a final award. We concur in the Molnars’ assessment of the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, we reverse the court’s order and reinstate the arbitration proceedings.

Superior Court 5/8/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAFAEL THEVENIN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAFAEL THEVENIN
No. 3420 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 96 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/8/2008
Appeal from the Order dated November 2, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of PhiladelphiaCounty, Criminal, No. 0512-0316 1/1
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals the trial court’s order suppressing drugs found in a house after Defendant Rafael Thevenin agreed to disclose the location of the drugs when confronted with a search warrant and a police statement that he could avoid a destructive search of the house by revealing where the drugs were located. The trial court held that because Thevenin was not given his Miranda warnings, learning of the location of the stash was the fruit of an improper statement. The Commonwealth asserts that while any statement Thevenin made in response to the police is properly suppressed, the physical evidence discovered is not. We agree with the Commonwealth and reverse.


Following Commonwealth v. Abbas, 862 A.2d 606 (Pa. Super. 2004) and United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004), merely because a voluntary statement was not preceded by Miranda warnings does not require the suppression of physical evidence found pursuant to the statement. Also, we will not upset the trial court’s determination that under the circumstances
the discovery of the drugs would not have been inevitable.......

..... It is conceded that no Miranda warnings were given to Thevenin before he was asked if he wanted the police to do a full search of the house or if he wanted to reveal where the drugs were hidden. It is further conceded by the Commonwealth that the statement about the location was inadmissible. However, case law indicates that these concessions do not require the suppression of the tangible objects discovered in the search.

Preliminarily, we note that we want to encourage the police to give a defendant or others that live with a defendant the opportunity to avoid a major disturbance to his or her house prior to an invasive search. Of course, nothing about this encouragement is lessened if the police gave the Miranda warnings prior to the request. We are simply noting that the prevention of unnecessary disturbance or destruction of property is a proper goal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted this same goal in United States v. Crespo de Llano, 838 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1988).

Although Crespo de Llano was decided under Fifth Amendment principles, the federal court nonetheless realized that police, when possessing a valid search warrant, have the inherent power to search for contraband that has been hidden. While some criminals leave the evidence of their wrongdoing in plain view, not all criminals are so accommodating. The law recognizes this fact and allows the police fair latitude in searching for hidden contraband. Statements such as the one in question here inform the person affected by the search of that latitude and offer that person the opportunity to avoid the disturbance of the property that is otherwise allowed by the law. Giving a suspect this opportunity strikes us as laudatory policy rather than requiring the police to hold their tongues and letting the chips fall as they may.

While policy favors allowing the police to give the defendant the opportunity to cooperate and avoid possible property destruction, the more important aspect of the issue is whether a Miranda warning is required prior to offering the opportunity to cooperate and what happens if a Miranda warning is not given prior to the offer.....

Superior Court 5/5/2008 - PETER E. STOECKINGER v. PRESIDENTIAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION OF DELAWARE VALLEY

PETER E. STOECKINGER v. PRESIDENTIAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION OF DELAWARE VALLEY
No. 2327 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 95 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/5/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered November 9, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington CountyCivil Division at No. 2005-2937
Before: BENDER, BOWES and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Peter E. Stoeckinger appeals from the order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Presidential Financial Corporation of Delaware Valley in Stoeckinger’s action against Presidential for unjust enrichment and tortious interference with contract. Stoeckinger argues that the trial court erred in determining that his claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior bankruptcy proceeding involving the parties herein. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Superior Court 05/05/08 - AMERICAN AND FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY, ROYAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, SAFEGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY AND ROYAL INDEMNITY COMP

AMERICAN AND FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY, ROYAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, SAFEGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY AND ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY v. JERRY’S SPORT CENTER, INC., JERRY’S SPORT CENTER NORTHEAST, INC., BONITZ BROTHERS, INC. OUTDOOR SPORTS HEADQUARTERS, INC., SIMMONS GUN SPECIALITIES, INC., NATIONAL ASSOC. FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NATIONAL SPINAL CORD INJURY ASSOC., AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-15 APPEAL OF: JERRY’S SPORT CENTER, INC., JERRY’S SPORT CENTER NORTHEAST, INC., BONITZ BROTHERS, INC., OUTDOOR SPORTS HEADQUARTERS, INC. AND SIMMONS GUN SPECIALITIES, INC.
No. 1098 MDA 2006 2008 PA Super 94 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/5/2008
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 7, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna CountyCivil Division at No. 2001-939
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Jerry’s Sport Center, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Jerry’s Sport Center Northeast, Inc., Bonitz Brothers, Inc., Outdoor Sports Headquarters, Inc., and Simmons Gun Specialties, Inc. (collectively, “Jerry’s Sport”), appeal from the July 7, 2006 judgment entered in favor of its commercial liability insurer, American and Foreign Insurance Company, Royal Insurance Company of America, Safeguard Insurance Company, and Royal Indemnity Company (collectively, “Royal”). For the reasons that follow, we conclude the trial court erred by granting Royal’s request for reimbursement of attorney fees that Royal had paid on behalf of Jerry’s Sport while Royal undertook a defense for Jerry’s Sport in an underlying suit pursuant to Royal’s putative reservation of rights for reimbursement of the attorneys fees from Jerry’s Sport should the court later (as it did) declare there was no coverage under the policy. Accordingly, we reverse the July 7, 2006 judgment entered in Royal’s favor.

Superior Court 05/05/08 - MARGARET P. SHEPARD v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

MARGARET P. SHEPARD v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
No. 1726 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 93 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/5/2008
Appeal from the Order entered June 18, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Civil, at No. 2589, April Term, 2006.
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Concurring Statement by: KLEIN, J.
Margaret P. Shepard (“Dr. Shepard”) appeals from the order of the trial court that granted summary judgment in favor of Temple University (“Temple”) in this breach of contract action. We affirm.

Superior Court 5/1/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THOMAS PERRIN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THOMAS PERRIN
No. 3058 EDA 2008 2008 PA Super 91 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/1/2008
Appeal from the PCRA Order of September 22, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. CP#8611-1641
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Thomas Perrin appeals pro se from the order entered by the Honorable Gregory E. Smith dismissing without a hearing his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Because we agree with the PCRA court that Perrin’s facially untimely petition failed to establish a statutory exception to the one-year jurisdictional time limit for filing a petition under the PCRA, we affirm. A full discussion follows.

Superior Court 5/1/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICKI LEE BOOZE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICKI LEE BOOZE
No. 1072 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 92 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/1/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Criminal Division, No(s): 227 of 2007
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Concurring Statement by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals the May 29, 2007, Order dismissing the charges against appellee Ricki Lee Booze on the basis of a violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, Prompt Trial. After thorough and careful consideration, we affirm.


Rule 600(A) makes clear that the mechanical run date comes 365 days after the filing of the complaint. This Court then calculates the adjusted run date according to 600(C). The adjusted run date is calculated by omitting certain times proscribed by 600(C), “excludable time,” from the calculation of the run date.

Pursuant to Rule 600(A) and (C), we calculate
the mechanical and adjusted run dates as follows:
The mechanical run date is the date by which the
trial must commence under [Rule 600]. It is
calculated by adding 365 days (the time for
commencing trial under [Rule 600]) to the date on
which the criminal complaint is filed. As discussed
herein, the mechanical run date can be modified or
extended by adding to the date any periods of time
in which delay is caused by the defendant. Once the
mechanical run date is modified accordingly, it then
becomes an adjusted run date.