COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TAMMY SNEATH GRIMES

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TAMMY SNEATH GRIMES No. 490 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 193 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/30/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 22, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No. CP-07-CR-0002060-2006
Before: BENDER, BOWES and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Tammy Sneath Grimes, Appellant, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after she was convicted by a jury on December 14, 2007, of theft and receiving stolen property. Appellant raises four issues for our review: (1) Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant the use of the justification defense; (2) Whether the trial court erred in precluding the testimony from two defense experts; (3) Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the issue of intent for the theft crime; and (4) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Appellant. We affirm.

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

AMANDA E. PUSL v. MATTHEW J. MEANS AND G & J WELDING & MACHINE COMPANY

AMANDA E. PUSL v. MATTHEW J. MEANS AND G & J WELDING & MACHINE COMPANY No. 596 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 192 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/23/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment February 28, 2008, In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Civil Division at No. 58-2004 C.D.
Before: BOWES, FREEDBERG, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Concurring Statement by: FREEDBERG, J.
Appellant Amanda E. Pusl appeals from the February 28, 2008 judgment in her favor in the amount of $25,000, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County. Upon review, we affirm.

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

WALNUT STREET ASSOCIATES, INC. v. BROKERAGE CONCEPTS, INC. and KIMBERLY MACRONE APPEAL OF: BROKERAGE CONCEPTS, INC.

WALNUT STREET ASSOCIATES, INC. v. BROKERAGE CONCEPTS, INC. and KIMBERLY MACRONE APPEAL OF: BROKERAGE CONCEPTS, INC. No. 3015 EDA 2007 2009 PA Super 191 Atlantic: 982 A.2d 94 Filed: 9/22/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered October 31, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division at August Term, 2005 No. 002626
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BOWES and DONOHUE, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Appellant, Brokerage Concepts, Inc. (“BCI”), appeals from the October 31, 2007 order denying its post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial and entering judgment in favor of Appellee, Walnut Street Associates, Inc. (“Walnut Street”). After careful review, we conclude that in accordance with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772(a), true statements may not be the basis for a claim of intentional interference with contractual relationships. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of BCI.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC DAVID TURNER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC DAVID TURNER No. 1534 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 190 Atlantic: 982 A.2d 90 Filed: 9/17/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, August 13, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No. CC No. 200717717
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., SHOGAN AND POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
Eric David Turner appeals from the judgment of sentence of August 13, 2008, following his conviction of two counts each of aggravated assault and recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”). We affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTINA MARIE HOUTZ

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTINA MARIE HOUTZ No. 1482 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 186 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/16/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 1, 2007, In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Criminal Division at No. CP-38-CR-0002219-2006.
Before: KLEIN, POPOVICH, and FITZGERALD*, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Appellant Christina Marie Houtz appeals the judgment of sentence claiming that her probationary sentence was unduly restrictive and/or incompatible with her freedom of conscience. We reverse.

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

THEODORE A. GALL, III A/K/A TED GALL AND THEODORE A. GALL IV A/K/A TED GALL, JR. v. DAVID A. CRAWFORD AND DIANE J. CRAWFORD, a/k/a DIANE CRAWFORD

THEODORE A. GALL, III A/K/A TED GALL AND THEODORE A. GALL IV A/K/A TED GALL, JR. v. DAVID A. CRAWFORD AND DIANE J. CRAWFORD, a/k/a DIANE CRAWFORD, HIS WIFE No. 1741 and 1811 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 187 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/16/2009
	Appeal from the Order dated September 10, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil No. GD07-00804
Before: DONOHUE, CLELAND and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
David A. Crawford and Diane J. Crawford, Appellants, and Theodore A. Gall, III and Theodore A. Gall, IV, Appellees, have filed cross appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granting in part and denying in part each party’s respective motions for post-trial relief. The appeals were consolidated by per curiam order on December 2, 2008. We affirm, finding that the prothonotary has the authority under Pa.R.C.P. 1037 to enter a default judgment in an equitable action and to set trial for damages.

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

RODERICK KULIK AND ANITA KULIK, HUSBAND AND WIFE v. ROSE MASH

RODERICK KULIK AND ANITA KULIK, HUSBAND AND WIFE v. ROSE MASH No. 1171 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 188 Atlantic: 982 A.2d 85 Filed: 9/16/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered June 9, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil, No. GD-07-018275
Before: KLEIN, ALLEN and COLVILLE*, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Roderick Kulik appeals from the Order granting Rose Mash’s summary judgment on the ground that the claim is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act. We agree with the ruling of the trial judge, the Honorable Paul F. Lutty, Jr., and affirm.

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

ROBERTA L. SILVER v. RALPH B. PINSKEY

ROBERTA L. SILVER v. RALPH B. PINSKEY No. 731 MDA 2007 2009 PA Super 183 Atlantic: 981 A.2d 284 Filed: 9/15/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered April 20, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Domestic Relations, No. 2587 DR 99 PACSES #700101608
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN*, KLEIN, GANTMAN, PANELLA, AND DONOHUE, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Ralph B. Pinskey (“Father”), appeals pro se from the support order entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, asking us to determine whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to award Appellee, Roberta L. Silver (“Mother”), one half of the Social Security benefits Father receives as representative payee for the children. Father also challenges other sections of the order as unenforceable as written. We hold the court’s jurisdiction in this case is sound, the Social Security derivative benefits at issue can be subject to legal process under 42 U.S.C.A. § 659 to enforce a child support obligation. Nevertheless, we vacate that part of the order setting Father’s basic support obligation at $0.00 and directing him to split with Mother the monthly Social Security derivative payments of $1,164.00. We remand the matter to the trial court to correct the record to comport with the court’s intent to ensure the children will benefit from the Social Security derivative payments regardless of whether they are staying with Father or Mother. We affirm the support order in all other respects.

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

ESTATE OF TERRY L. KENDALL,DECEASED APPEAL OF: SUSAN L. KENDALL

ESTATE OF TERRY L. KENDALL,DECEASED APPEAL OF: SUSAN L. KENDALL No. 3448 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 184 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/15/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered November 14, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans’ Court at No. 2005-2184
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., BENDER and GANTMAN, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Susan L. Kendall appeals from the order entered by the orphans’ court on November 14, 2008, that granted the motion for summary judgment filed by PNC Bank, N.A., executor of the Estate of Terry L. Kendall, deceased, and denied Susan’s cross motion for summary judgment. The order also granted PNC’s petition for declaratory judgment, providing that Susan’s interest in the Estate was to be determined by a formula interpreting subparagraph G.(1) of Susan’s and Terry’s prenuptial agreement. We affirm.

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

US BANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CO., LLC, v. PAMELA MALLORY AND JAMALL ROUNDTREE APPEAL OF: PAMELA MALLORY

US BANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CO., LLC, v. PAMELA MALLORY AND JAMALL ROUNDTREE APPEAL OF: PAMELA MALLORY No. 1924 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 182 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Denied 11/24/2009 Filed: 9/14/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered June 4, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil at No(s): No. 001461 November Term, 2007
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying Appellant Pamela Mallory’s petition to strike and/or open the default judgment entered in favor of Appellee US Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Residential Funding Co., LLC. Appellant contends (1) the default judgment should have been stricken since the failure to plead properly an assignment of mortgage in a mortgage foreclosure action is a fatal defect apparent on the face of the record; (2) Appellee did not have standing to bring the instant mortgage foreclosure action, and consequently, the default judgment should be stricken; (3) the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s petition to open the default judgment without considering Appellant’s defenses to the action; and (4) the default judgment should be opened since Appellant met all prongs necessary for the opening of default judgments. We affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JEFFREY A. MADEIRA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JEFFREY A. MADEIRA No. 1747 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 180 Atlantic: 982 A.2d 81 Filed: 9/14/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 26, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Berks County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-06-CR-0000629-2008.
Before: STEVENS, SHOGAN, JJ. and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed upon Appellee, Jeffrey A. Madeira, following his conviction of failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders requirements. After careful review, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MARCUS GIBBS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MARCUS GIBBS No. 1491 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 181 Atlantic: 981 A.2d 274 Filed: 9/14/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 11, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal at No(s): CP-25-CR-0002780-2007
Before: SHOGAN, FREEDBERG and HUDOCK*, JJ.
Opinion by: FREEDBERG, J.
Appellant, Marcus Gibbs, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on August 1, 2008, by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County. After review, we affirm.

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

MICHELLE ZAPPALA v. THE JAMES LEWIS GROUP t/a BRANDOLINI COMPANIES, JAMES LEWIS CORPORATION, PROGRESS BANK, THE PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK t/a PEP BOY

MICHELLE ZAPPALA v. THE JAMES LEWIS GROUP t/a BRANDOLINI COMPANIES, JAMES LEWIS CORPORATION, PROGRESS BANK, THE PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK t/a PEP BOYS MICHELLE ZAPPALA v. BRANDOLINI PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC., PAOLI SHOPPING CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PAOLI SHOPPING CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PHASE II, UNITED BUILDERS & ONSTRUCTORS, LTD., KORTAN GENERAL MAINTENANCE, INC., THE JAMES LEWIS GROUP t/a BRANDOLINI COMPANIES, JAMES LEWIS CORPORATION, PROGRESS BANK, THE PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK t/a BRUBACHER EXCAVATING, INC., GREEN DESIGN, INC., CARROLL CONTRACTORS, INC., PICKERING VALLEY LANDSCAPE, INC., BALA ELECTRIC, HEYSER LANDSCAPING, INC., PAOLI SHOPPING CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II No. 313 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 179 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/11/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered October 2, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No. August Term, 2000 – No. 00151 and October Term, 2000 – No. 03857
Before: PANELLA, DONOHUE and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Appellant Michelle Zappala (“Zappala”) appeals from the trial court’s order entered October 2, 2007 granting Appellees’ motion pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) to transfer this civil case from Philadelphia County to Chester County based upon forum non conveniens. As we discuss in detail, the case before us was remanded to the trial court by our Supreme Court and the forum non conveniens motion at issue is the Chester County Defendants’ second attempt to have this case transferred from Philadelphia to Chester County. On remand, Zappala, the Chester County Defendants, and the trial court each interpreted differently the teaching of our Supreme Court’s opinion in Zappala v. Brandolini Property Management, Inc., 589 Pa. 516, 909 A.2d 1272 (2006) (“Zappala I”). While we are in general agreement with the analysis employed by the learned trial judge, The Honorable Arnold L. New, we reverse because of a lack of an evidentiary record to support the trial court’s findings.

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

ANTONIO RANALLI v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY

ANTONIO RANALLI v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY No. 871 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 178 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Denied 11/10/2009 Filed: 9/8/2009
	Appeal from the Order dated November 20, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil, No. 1541 May Term, 2007
Before: KLEIN, SHOGAN, JJ. and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Rohm and Haas Company appeals from the trial court order denying preliminary objections on the grounds that all of the claims against it are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, (“Act”), 77 Pa.C.S.A. § 481(a), and the Occupational Disease Act (“ODA”). 77 P.S. § 1208. Antonio Ranalli filed a wrongful death action against Rohm and Haas for damages resulting from the death of his wife, Olivia Ranalli, who died of a brain tumor in 2007. Ranalli claimed his wife’s brain tumor, diagnosed in 2006, was a result of her exposure to vinyl chloride when working for Rohm and Haas, and that the exposure occurred when visiting Rohm and Haas’s research facility in Spring House between 1974 and 1980. Rohm and Haas filed preliminary objections claiming suit was barred under the exclusivity provision of the Act. Ranalli argued that the workers’ compensation bar does not apply and Rohm and Haas is not immune from civil action because: (a) the Workers’ Compensation Act expressly excludes from its definition of “injury” occupational diseases manifesting more than 300 weeks after last date of workplace exposure, and since the exclusivity provision does not bar a common law action against an employer for an injury which is non-compensable under the Act, the civil action is not barred; and (b) Rohm and Haas was “fraudulent” in not revealing studies that showed the dangers of vinyl chloride.

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

IN RE: ADOPTION OF M.M.H. APPEAL OF: JAMES E. MAHOOD AND WILDER & MAHOOD, P.C.

IN RE: ADOPTION OF M.M.H. APPEAL OF: JAMES E. MAHOOD AND WILDER & MAHOOD, P.C. No. 1331 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 177 Atlantic: 981 A.2d 261 Filed: 9/4/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered July 21, 2008, In the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County Civil Division, at No. A08-010(x3)
Before: KLEIN, ALLEN, and COLVILLE,* JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
This is an adoption case that concerns the orphans’ court’s authority to determine, sua sponte, the reasonable value of an attorney’s legal services and to reduce the legal fees it finds excessive. In this case, the trial court, sitting en banc, concluded that the legal fees of James E. Mahood and Wilder and Mahood, P.C., (“Appellants”) were excessive when compared to similar cases in Allegheny County, and reduced them to an amount that it found to be reasonable. On appeal, Appellants maintain, in essence, that the trial court committed an error of law because it lacked the authority to take such measures. We conclude that based upon the facts of this case, the trial court did not possess the authority – statutory, policy-based, inherent or otherwise - to unilaterally decrease Appellants’ attorney’s fees. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

1. -----------------------------------------------------

Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v.GARY WILLIAMS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v.GARY WILLIAMS No. 1751 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 176 Atlantic: 980 A.2d 667 Filed: 9/4/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 29, 2008 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0009046-2007
Before: KLEIN, BENDER and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Gary Williams (Appellant) appeals the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions for three violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, specifically, Persons Not to Possess Firearms, Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License, and Carrying Firearms on Public Streets in Philadelphia. See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105, 6106, and 6108. Appellant challenges the trial court’s refusal to suppress certain evidence seized following his arrest, contending that the police stopped him without reasonable suspicion. Appellant also asserts that it was erroneous for the trial court to impose two consecutive terms of incarceration for offenses that should have merged for the purposes of sentencing. We find no merit in Appellant’s claims, and therefore affirm the judgment of sentence.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. VINCENT ANDREW CASCARDO

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. VINCENT ANDREW CASCARDO No. 999 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 175 Atlantic: 981 A.2d 245 Filed: 9/2/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 23, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No. CP-38-CR-0000439-2007
Before: ORIE MELVIN, GANTMAN AND CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: CLELAND, J.
Appellant, Vincent Andrew Cascardo (Cascardo), appeals the judgment of sentence entered on January 23, 2008 by the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County following his conviction for first-degree murder, criminal conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and other related offenses. Cascardo challenges several of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and alleges a Brady violation. Because we conclude the claims are without merit, we affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SCOTT MARION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SCOTT MARION No. 68 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 174 Atlantic: 981 A.2d 230 Filed: 9/2/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 11, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal, Nos. CP-14-CR-0001198-2007and CP-14-CR-0001199-2007
Before: ORIE MELVIN, GANTMAN, AND CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Scott Marion, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial conviction for delivery of marijuana, possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”), possession of small amount of marijuana for personal use, and criminal use of communication facility. Appellant asks us to determine whether the trial court erred when it (1) directed the jury to continue deliberations; (2) found Appellant failed to establish an entrapment defense; and (3) imposed a mandatory minimum sentence under the “drug-free school zone” sentencing provision at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317. We hold (1) the court’s jury instruction in the face of deadlock was appropriate; (2) Appellant failed to establish an entrapment defense; and (3) the court properly sentenced Appellant under the “drug-free school zone” sentencing provision at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317. Accordingly, we affirm.

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

THE McNAUGHTON PROPERTIES, LP and MIDPENN ESTATES v. TERRY N. BARR and QUINN K. BARR

THE McNAUGHTON PROPERTIES, LP and MIDPENN ESTATES v. TERRY N. BARR and QUINN K. BARR, Husband and Wife, No. 1468 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 173 Atlantic: 981 A.2d 222 Filed: 9/1/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered July 22, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Civil Division at No. 08-1975
Before: BOWES, DONOHUE and FREEDBERG, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Appellants, The McNaughton Properties, LP, and MidPenn Estates (collectively “McNaughton”), appeal from the trial court’s order dated July 22, 2008 sustaining the preliminary objections of Appellees, Terry N. Barr and Quinn K Barr (collectively, the “Barrs”). This case raises an issue of first impression in Pennsylvania: whether a court may order the relocation of an express easement. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that under existing Pennsylvania law, express easements must be construed according to contract interpretation principles, and thus we are without authority to modify the terms of an unambiguous express easement. Hence, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of McNaughton’s declaratory judgment action.

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