IN RE: M. ROBERT ULLMAN APPEAL OF: M. ROBERT ULLMAN

IN RE: M. ROBERT ULLMAN APPEAL OF: M. ROBERT ULLMAN

No. 984 MDA 2010 2010 PA Super 76 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/30/2010

Appeal from the Order entered May 8, 2009

In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County

Criminal, No. CP-54-MD-0000362-2009

Before: GANTMAN, ALLEN, AND LAZARUS, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.

Appellant, M. Robert Ullman, appeals pro se from the order entered in the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, which denied and dismissed Appellant’s petition for approval of his private criminal complaint. We affirm.

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

RICHARD & DEBRA D’ADAMO v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

RICHARD & DEBRA D’ADAMO v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGEDONALD HOLOCHER AND LISA HOLOCHER, HIS WIFE v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE
No. 479 and 480 MDA 2008 2010 PA Super 77 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/30/2010

Appeal from the Judgment entered November 12, 2008
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Civil, Nos. 2257-2006 and 2258-2006

Before: LALLY-GREEN, GANTMAN, AND ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.

Appellants, Richard and Debra D’Adamo and Donald and Lisa Holocher, appeal from the judgments entered in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas on Appellants’ statutory arbitration awards. Appellants ask us to determine whether the arbitrators properly gave Appellee, Erie Insurance Exchange (“Erie”), a credit of $750,000.00 on each award to account for Appellants’ recoveries from the tortfeasor’s liability insurance policies. We hold Erie was entitled to a credit of $750,000.00 on each arbitration award, consistent with Appellants’ recoveries from the tortfeasor’s liability insurance policies; and the court properly refused to vacate/modify the arbitration awards to disallow the credits. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments entered on the arbitration awards.
-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

DIANA K. BETZ, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES SIMIKIAN,DECEASED, v. PNEUMO ABEX LLC, successor-in-interest to ABEX CORPORATION, ALLIED SIGNAL, INC

DIANA K. BETZ, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES SIMIKIAN,DECEASED, v. PNEUMO ABEX LLC, successor-in-interest to ABEX CORPORATION, ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., in its own right And as successor-in-interest to ALLIED CORPORATION, successor-in-interest to BENDIX CORPORATION, BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, CARLISLE COMPANIES, INC., OKONITE COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, DAIMLER CHRYSLER CORPORATION, f/k/a CHRYSLER CORPORATION, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., NAPA AUTOMOTIVE PARTS GROUP, ROHRICH CADILLAC, INC., DYKE MOTOR SUPPLY COMPANY INCORPORATED, SOUTH HILLS AUTO PARTS CO.
No. 1058 WDA 2006 2010 PA Super 74 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/30/2010

Appeal from the Order entered May 10, 2006,
Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County,
Civil Division at No. GD 05-4662

Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, BOWES, PANELLA, DONOHUE and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Concurring Statement by: SHOGAN, J.

Appellant, Diana K. Betz (“Betz”), Executrix of the estate of Charles Simikian (“Simikian”), appeals from the trial court’s final order entered May 10, 2006, disposing of all claims in, and dismissing all parties to, this action. This final order followed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellees Allied Signal, Inc. (“Allied Signal”), Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), General Motors Corporation (“GMC”), and DaimlerChrysler Corporation, f/k/a Chrysler Corporation (“Chrysler”), (collectively, the “Friction Product Defendants” ). As noted infra, Simikian, a victim of mesothelioma, was a forty-four (44) year veteran of the automotive repair industry. The grant of summary judgment was based upon the trial court’s earlier grant of a defense “global” Frye motion to exclude any and all expert testimony asserting that a plaintiff contracted an asbestos-related disease as a result of exposures resulting from work in the automotive repair field. For the reasons set forth herein, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Friction Product Defendants. We so conclude because the trial court, in granting the Frye motion, based its decision neither on a “scientific” theory advanced by the Friction Product Defendants nor evidence of record. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

BRUCE AND MARY ANN MONTAGAZZI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF MATTHEW MONTAGAZZI, A MINOR v. NICHOLAS CRISCI, A MINOR,

BRUCE AND MARY ANN MONTAGAZZI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF MATTHEW MONTAGAZZI, A MINOR v. NICHOLAS CRISCI, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH JENNIFER CRISCI, HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM; BRYAN BACHMAN, A MINOR; RYAN DERBAUM, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH SHELLY DERBAUM, HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM; AND JIMMY JOE PRATTE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH JAMES PRATTE, HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM No. 1055 WDA 2009 2010 PA Super 78 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/30/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered May 29, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Civil Division at No. 11367-2007
Before: BENDER, PANELLA and OTT, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Bruce and Mary Ann Montagazzi, Individually and as the Parents and Natural Guardians of Matthew Montagazzi, a Minor, appeal the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants on claims that they were negligent in failing to warn or prevent Matthew Montagazzi from lighting the fuse of an improvised explosive device that he and the minor defendants created. Detonation of the device amputated portions of several fingers on Matthew’s right hand. The trial court concluded that the minor defendants owed Matthew no duty and, in the alternative, found that Matthew had assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law. We concur in the trial court’s assessment and, accordingly, we affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of all defendants.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOYCE LILLIAN NEWTON

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOYCE LILLIAN NEWTON No. 1298 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 75 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/30/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on April 13, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-49-CR-0000384-2004 and CR-0000061-04.
Before: ALLEN, LAZARUS and OLSON, JJ.
Opinion by: OLSON, J.
Appellant, Joyce Lillian Newton, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on April 13, 2009. We affirm in part and vacate in part.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. IN THE INTEREST OF: M.W.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. IN THE INTEREST OF: M.W. No. 2801 EDA 2007 2010 PA Super 73 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/28/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered September 5, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Division, J.P. No. 613-07-07
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, MUSMANNO, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, DONOHUE, SHOGAN, and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“the Commonwealth”) appeals from the September 5, 2007 Order dismissing M.W.’s juvenile Petition. We granted en banc review to determine the proper procedure for entering an adjudication of delinquency under the Juvenile Act. We vacate and remand for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

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

DIANE BLACK v. LABOR READY, INC., WILLIAMSPORT STEEL CONTAINER CORP. and RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.

DIANE BLACK v. LABOR READY, INC., WILLIAMSPORT STEEL CONTAINER CORP. and RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. No. 312 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 72 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/26/2010
	Appeal from the Order of February 9, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, Civil Division at No. 06-01679
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., FREEDBERG and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment. More specifically, Appellant challenges the trial court’s decision to grant Appellee Williamsport Steel Container Corporation’s (“Appellee”) motion for summary judgment. We vacate the judgment and reverse the order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee.

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

CHARLES E. KUROWSKI v. A. PARKER BURROUGHS, EDITOR OBSERVER PUBLISHING CO., OBSERVER-REPORTER

CHARLES E. KUROWSKI v. A. PARKER BURROUGHS, EDITOR OBSERVER PUBLISHING CO., OBSERVER-REPORTER No. 1391 WDA 2010 2010 PA Super 69 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/26/2010
	Appeal from the Order July 20, 2009, In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Civil Division at No(s): 2006-7896
Before: MUSMANNO, OLSON, and FREEDBERG, JJ.
Opinion by: FREEDBERG, J.
This matter is before the Court on the appeal of Charles E. Kurowski from the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County entering summary judgment in favor of Appellee. We affirm.

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

STEPHEN J. MIRIZIO v. CATHY JOSEPH AND FIGURE THE ODDS, INC.

STEPHEN J. MIRIZIO v. CATHY JOSEPH AND FIGURE THE ODDS, INC. No. 2014 and 2024 WDA 2008 2010 PA Super 70 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/26/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment Entered November 6, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Civil Division at No. 2006-946
Before: MUSMANNO, BENDER and BOWES, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Stephen Mirizio appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Cathy Joseph and Figure the Odds, Inc., in Mirizio’s action in ejectment against Joseph. In the underlying case, Joseph filed several counterclaims against Mirizio, and in her cross-appeal, she claims that she was aggrieved by the disposition of one these claims. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

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

MICHELLE GORMLEY v. COTY EDGAR

MICHELLE GORMLEY v. COTY EDGAR No. 50 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 71 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/26/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered December 4, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. JUNE TERM 2007 NO. 002496.
Before: BOWES, GANTMAN, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Michelle Gormley appeals from the December 4, 2008 order compelling her to provide an executed consent for release of certain mental health records. We affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HUGO M. SELENSKI COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PAUL WEAKLEY APPEAL OF: THE TIMES LEADER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HUGO M. SELENSKI COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PAUL WEAKLEY APPEAL OF: THE TIMES LEADER No. 989 MDA 2008 2010 PA Super 68 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/23/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered May 21, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002700-2006 and CP-40-CR-0002701-2006
Before: GANTMAN, FREEDBERG, JJ., and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: McEWEN, P.J.E.
Dissenting Opinion by: FREEDBERG, J.
Appellant, The Times Leader, appeals from the order that denied its motion to open a proceeding, held pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 500, to preserve the testimony of a witness in anticipation of the criminal trials of appellee-defendants, Hugo M. Selenski and Paul Weakley. We affirm.

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

BRUBACHER EXCAVATING, INC. v. COMMERCE BANK/HARRISBURG, N.A.

BRUBACHER EXCAVATING, INC. v. COMMERCE BANK/HARRISBURG, N.A. No. 96 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 67 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/23/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered December 22, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County, Civil Division, at No. CI-07-10434.
Before: MUSMANNO, SHOGAN, JJ. and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, N.A. (“Appellant”) appeals from the order entering summary judgment in favor of Brubacher Excavating, Inc. (“Appellee”). Because we hold that the trial court erred in awarding pre-judgment interest, we vacate and remand for modification of the judgment consistent with this Opinion.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN MINICH

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN MINICH No. 711 and 712 WDA 2008 2010 PA Super 66 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2010
	Appeal from the Order April 14, 2008 Court of Common Pleas, Jefferson County, Criminal Division at Nos. CP-33-CR-0000518-2007 and CP-33-CR-0000083-2008
Before: BOWES, DONOHUE and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
In this appeal, the Commonwealth challenges the trial court’s denial of a motion in limine seeking to preclude defense counsel from impeaching the credibility of the alleged victim of the crimes at issue through cross-examination and extrinsic evidence tending to show that the alleged victim lied about matters unrelated to the case. This case raises an issue of first impression in Pennsylvania, namely the interplay between Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence (Pa.R.E.) 608, which deals specifically with character evidence relating to the truthfulness of a witness, and Pa.R.E. 404(a)(2)(i), which addresses the admissibility of evidence of a “pertinent trait of character” of a victim who testifies at trial. Because we conclude that Pa.R.E. 608 codifies Pennsylvania law defining the limits of permissible evidence to impeach or bolster any witness’s credibility and precludes the use of specific instances of conduct, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the Commonwealth’s motion in limine and remand the case for trial consistent with this decision.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THOMAS RAY ANDERSON

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THOMAS RAY ANDERSON No. 506 WDA 2009 2010 PA Super 64 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2010
	Appeal from the PCRA Order February 17, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County Criminal, No. CP-16-CR-0000278-2005
Before: MUSMANNO, GANTMAN, AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Thomas Ray Anderson, appeals from the order entered after remand in the Clarion County Court of Common Pleas, which denied after remand his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). We hold Appellant failed to establish the Commonwealth breached the plea agreement. We also hold Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)(1)-(2) does not apply in the context of a remand for a PCRA evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN P. KARTH

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN P. KARTH No. 1877 WDA 2009 2010 PA Super 65 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of August 11, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Criminal Division, Nos. CR-0000345-07, CP-17-CR-0000820-2007
Before: DONOHUE, ALLEN, and LAZARUS, JJ.
Opinion by: LAZARUS, J.
Brian P. Karth appeals from his judgment of sentence imposed after the Honorable Fredric J. Ammerman found him guilty of the summary offense of public drunkenness. Karth had earlier been acquitted by a jury of two charges of criminal mischief stemming from the same incident, during which incident property belonging to Michael Morrison was damaged. Karth was sentenced to ninety days’ probation on the condition that he serve 15 days in the Clearfield County Jail. The statutory maximum sentence for a summary offense is 90 days’ imprisonment pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 106. As a further condition of his probation, the court ordered Karth to pay restitution in the total amount of $2,385.95, in monthly installments of not less than $40, “until all amounts are paid in full.” Sentencing Order, 8/11/09, at 2. Thus, at the rate of $40 per month, it would take Karth 60 months, or 57 months past the expiration of his probation, to make full restitution as ordered by the court.

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

[B.C.S.] v. [J.A.S.]

[B.C.S.] v. [J.A.S.] No. 1375 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 63 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/20/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered July 22, 2009, In the Court of Common Pleas of York County At No. 2006-FC-0687093
Before: STEVENS, DONOHUE, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, J.A.S. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas, denying his petition for shared custody and granting primary physical custody of the parties’ two daughters, E.S., age 11, and C.S., age 10 (collectively, “Children”), to Appellee, B.C.S. (“Mother”). The order also granted shared legal custody to the parties and made specific provisions for holidays and vacations. We hold that a court may not rely on any custom, practice, or judicial norm advancing a presumption of primary physical custody of school-age children when evaluating a petition to modify custody. Accordingly, we vacate and remand with instructions.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAMON LUIS GONZALEZ-DEJUSUS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAMON LUIS GONZALEZ-DEJUSUS No. 1204 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 62 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/20/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, January 24, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No. CP-09-CR-0006865-2006
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., PANELLA AND DONOHUE, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
This is an appeal nunc pro tunc from a judgment of sentence imposed upon appellant after he pled guilty to a variety of charges including kidnapping, conspiracy, robbery, and burglary. We dismiss the appeal.

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

IN THE MATTER OF: L.F. APPEAL OF: L.W. MOTHER

IN THE MATTER OF: L.F. APPEAL OF: L.W. MOTHER No. 1672 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 61 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/19/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered May 4, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): D#2754-06-07 J#389147-01
Before: STEVENS, SHOGAN, and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Concurring Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
L.W. (Mother) appeals from the order entered on May 4, 2009, granting the petition to terminate her parental rights to her son, L.F. (d.o.b. 5/26/01) (Child). The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b), and changed his goal to adoption pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351. Mother claims the trial court abused its discretion in compelling Mother’s therapist to testify and improperly considered her testimony in making its decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights. We affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT COOPER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT COOPER No. 223 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 60 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/19/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered January 12, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal No.: MC-51-CR-0020427-2008
Before: DONOHUE, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Robert Cooper, files this appeal from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, denying his petition for writ of certiorari following his non-jury conviction of possession of a controlled substance (marijuana). On appeal, Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. We hold that a police officer may not conduct a pat-down search, i.e. a Terry frisk, of a person who reaches toward his pocket upon the officer’s approach when that person obeys the officer’s directive to stop before actually reaching into his pocket, and the officer does not articulate any reason to believe the person possessed a weapon. Accordingly, we reverse.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEVEN P. DIPANFILO

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEVEN P. DIPANFILO No. 2180 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 59 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/16/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered June 25, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division, at Nos. CR-0000122-07 and CP-46-CR-0000489-2008.
Before: BOWES, OLSON and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: OLSON, J.
Appellant, Steven P. DiPanfilo, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on June 25, 2009. We affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LOUIS GARZONE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LOUIS GARZONE No. 708 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 58 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/14/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 30, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012747-2007
Before: STEVENS, MUNDY, JJ., and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered on January 30, 2009 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following Appellant Louis Garzone’s guilty plea to numerous charges, including corrupt organizations, criminal conspiracy, 244 counts of theft by unlawful taking (for theft of body parts), abuse of corpse, recklessly endangering another person, and fraudulently obtaining food stamps or other public assistance in connection with his participation in the illegal harvesting and sale of human body parts from corpses, as well as filing false forms seeking reimbursement from the government for providing funeral services for which he had already been paid. As part of Appellant’s sentence, upon the filing of a timely post-sentence motion by the Commonwealth, the trial court directed Appellant to pay $90,101, which was comprised of $84,796 for the salaries of the assistant district attorneys and county detectives assigned to the District Attorney’s Office, as well as $5,305 for the grand jury costs. On appeal, Appellant contends the trial court did not have the authority to order Appellant to pay the expenses associated with the district attorneys’ salaries, the county detectives’ salaries, or the grand jury costs. We vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence as it relates to the costs for the assistant district attorneys’ and county detectives’ salaries but affirm in all other respects.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GERALD GARZONE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GERALD GARZONE No. 695 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 57 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/13/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 30, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012746-2007
Before: STEVENS, MUNDY, JJ., and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered on January 30, 2009 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following Appellant Gerald Garzone’s guilty plea to numerous charges, including corrupt organizations, criminal conspiracy, 244 counts of theft by unlawful taking (for theft of body parts), abuse of corpse, recklessly endangering another person, and fraudulently obtaining food stamps or other public assistance in connection with his participation in the illegal harvesting and sale of human body parts from corpses, as well as filing false forms seeking reimbursement from the government for providing funeral services for which he had already been paid. As part of Appellant’s sentence, upon the filing of a timely post-sentence motion by the Commonwealth, the trial court directed Appellant to pay $90,028, which was comprised of $84,723 for the salaries of the assistant district attorneys and county detectives assigned to the District Attorney’s Office, as well as $5,305 for the grand jury costs. On appeal, Appellant contends the trial court did not have the authority to order Appellant to pay the expenses associated with the district attorneys’ salaries, the county detectives’ salaries, or the grand jury costs. We vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence as it relates to the costs for the assistant district attorneys’ and county detectives’ salaries but affirm in all other respects.

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

IN RE: Z.P., A MINOR CHILD APPEAL OF: LYCOMING COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

IN RE: Z.P., A MINOR CHILD APPEAL OF: LYCOMING COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES No. 1214 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 56 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/9/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered June 26, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Orphans’ Court, No. 5987 Adoption
Before: STEVENS, GANTMAN, AND ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Lycoming County Children and Youth Agency (“Agency”), appeals from the order entered in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas, which denied the Agency’s petition to terminate Father’s parental rights with respect to his minor child, Z.P. Upon a thorough review of the record, the arguments presented, and the applicable law, we hold the court erred in denying the termination petition. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the Agency’s petition and remand with instructions to terminate Father’s parental rights.

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

CHARLES MEADOWS ET AL. v. ENOCH GOODMAN

CHARLES MEADOWS ET AL. v. ENOCH GOODMAN
No. 1737 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 55 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/8/2010

Appeal from the Order entered May 11, 2009
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil No. May Term 2008, No. 00297

Before: BOWES, GANTMAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.

Charles Meadows and Terry Bell, Appellants, appeal from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas denying their motion to amend their complaint and dismissing the case. We hold that the trial court erred in denying a “motion to amend complaint” seeking to join a defendant, which had been filed by the plaintiff before the statute of limitations had run, and where neither the named defendant nor the proposed defendant would suffer prejudice. We further hold the court erred in sua sponte dismissing the case where, even if the motion to join a defendant were properly denied, there remained outstanding claims. We reverse and remand.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GEORGE D. WALLS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GEORGE D. WALLS
No. 1208 WDA 2008 2010 PA Super 54 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/7/2010

Appeal from the PCRA Order, July 18, 2008,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No. CP-02-CR-0014218-2002

Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., SHOGAN AND POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.

George D. Walls appeals from the order entered July 18, 2008, dismissing his PCRA petition without a hearing. After careful review, we are compelled to vacate in part and remand for further proceedings.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here