COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WAYNE PAUL BURKETT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WAYNE PAUL BURKETT No. 1159 WDA 2009 2010 PA Super 182 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/30/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered March 27, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, Criminal Division, at No: 1982-284, CP-07-CR-0000284-1982, No. 82 CR 284.
Before: BOWES, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Wayne Paul Burkett appeals from the order entered in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his first PCRA petition sixteen years after he filed that petition. After careful review, we affirm.

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

IN RE: BRIDGEPORT FIRE LITIGATION APPEAL OF: PROFESSIONAL FLOORING, CO., INC., LIMERICK CARPET AND FLOORING, INC., ROSE LINE, INC., AND RENU ELECTRONI

IN RE: BRIDGEPORT FIRE LITIGATION APPEAL OF: PROFESSIONAL FLOORING, CO., INC., LIMERICK CARPET AND FLOORING, INC., ROSE LINE, INC., AND RENU ELECTRONICS, INC. No. 2865 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 181 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/28/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered September 4, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Civil Division, No. 05-20924
Before: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and FREEDBERG, JJ.
Opinion by: LAZARUS, J.
Professional Flooring Company, Inc., Limerick Carpet & Flooring, Inc., Rose Line, Inc. and Renu Electronics, Inc. (hereinafter “Certain Class Plaintiffs”) appeal from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County on September 4, 2009, denying their motion for incentive fees, and the order entered on September 10, 2009, authorizing compensation for the court-appointed Claims Administrator, by the Honorable Steven T. O’Neill. After careful review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. This matter forms a small part of the class action litigation that arose from the destruction by fire on May 15, 2001 of a large, multi-unit industrial complex known as the Continental Business Center (“CBC”) in Bridgeport, Pennsylvania. Appellants, Certain Class Plaintiffs, are businesses that suffered losses in the fire and are the original plaintiffs, having filed a putative class action suit against the owners and managers of the CBC nine days after the fire occurred. On April 14, 2003, Judge O’Neill certified the class and appointed Certain Class Plaintiffs as representative plaintiffs of the class. He also appointed the law firms of Kline & Specter, P.C. and High Swartz LLP as class counsel.

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

STERLING LEWIS v. CRC INDUSTRIES, INC.

STERLING LEWIS v. CRC INDUSTRIES, INC. No. 2358 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 179 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/27/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment entered June 19, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, No. 000815, September Term, 2006
Before: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and FREEDBERG, JJ.
Opinion by: LAZARUS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Sterling Lewis appeals from the judgment entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Appellee, CRC Industries, Inc. (“CRC”), following a jury trial in this strict product liability action. After careful review, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

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

CHRISTOPHER M. MISSETT v. HUB INTERNATIONAL PENNSYLVANIA, LLC

CHRISTOPHER M. MISSETT v. HUB INTERNATIONAL PENNSYLVANIA, LLC No. 2096 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 178 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/23/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment entered January 7, 2010 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Civil Division, No. 08-22584
Before: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and FREEDBERG, JJ.
Opinion by: LAZARUS, J.
Hub International Pennsylvania, LLC (“HubPa”), appeals the judgment entered on January 7, 2010 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in relation to an Order dated December 17, 2008, granting appellee Christopher M. Missett’s (“Missett”) Motion for Declaratory Judgment and denying HubPa’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. After careful consideration, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

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

IN RE: MARCEL CENTENO, PRIVATE DETECTIVE LICENSE APPLICATION APPEAL OF: THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: MARCEL CENTENO, PRIVATE DETECTIVE LICENSE APPLICATION APPEAL OF: THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1801 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 177 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/22/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered May 18, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. CP-51-MD-0000128-2009
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., BOWES, J., and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: OPINION PER CURIAM
The Commonwealth appeals from the decision of the trial court to issue to appellee, Marcel Centeno, a license under The Private Detective Act of 1953, 22 P.S. §§ 11 et seq. We reverse.

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

DUANE REOTT AND PATTY REOTT, Husband and Wife v. ASIA TREND, INC., CLAM CORPORATION (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO USL OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC.)

DUANE REOTT AND PATTY REOTT, Husband and Wife v. ASIA TREND, INC., CLAM CORPORATION (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO USL OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC.), USL OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC., REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC., RA BRANDS, LLC and THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE No. 2, 109, 112 and 113 WDA 2010 2010 PA Super 176 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/21/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered December 14, 2009, Court of Common Pleas, Butler County, Civil Division at No. AD 06-11440
Before: STEVENS, DONOHUE and OTT, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Duane Reott (“Mr. Reott”) and Patty Reott (“Mrs. Reott”) (collectively, “the Reotts”) appeal from the order entered on December 14, 2009, denying their motion for post-trial relief filed following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, Asia Trend, Inc., Remington Arms Company and RA Brands, and The Sportsman’s Guide (collectively, “Appellees”). After careful review, we reverse and remand for a new trial limited to damages.

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

MARK W. AMBROSE AND RONALD A. KRAMER v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF EVANS CITY, PENNSYLVANIA

MARK W. AMBROSE AND RONALD A. KRAMER v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF EVANS CITY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 847 WDA 2009 2010 PA Super 172 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/17/2010
	Appeal from the Order of April 17, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, at No. GD 04-021511.
Before: BENDER, BOWES, and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Citizens National Bank of Evans City, Pennsylvania (“CNB”) appeals the order dated April 17, 2009 and entered on April 20, 2009, wherein the trial court clarified its April 18, 2009 award of attorneys’ fees totaling $201,704.79 to Mark W. Ambrose and Ronald A. Kramer, hereinafter collectively referred to as Appellees. We affirm.

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

IRA G. STEFFY & SON, INC. v. CITIZENS BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA

IRA G. STEFFY & SON, INC. v. CITIZENS BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2481 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 175 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/17/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered August 7, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Civil No. 2009-C-2091
Before: BENDER, OTT and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Appellant/Plaintiff, Ira G. Steffy & Son, Inc., appeals from the order entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas sustaining the preliminary objections of Appellee/Defendant, Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, and dismissing Appellant’s amended complaint. After an extensive review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s opinion, finding that Appellant, a subcontractor who was not paid for work performed on a project after Appellee bank failed to release construction funds to the developer, has failed to state a claim for relief against Appellee.

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

JUDITH MOORE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DONNIE R. MOORE, DECEASED, AND IN HER OWN RIGHT v. ERICSSON, INC. (SUCCESSOR TO ANACONDA WIRE AND CABLE

JUDITH MOORE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DONNIE R. MOORE, DECEASED, AND IN HER OWN RIGHT v. ERICSSON, INC. (SUCCESSOR TO ANACONDA WIRE AND CABLE COMPANY), AMTCO/AMERICAN BILTRITE, CBS CORPORATION, CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, CHAMPLAIN CABLE CORPORATION, CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC., CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., DFT, RPM, BONDEX INTERNATIONAL AND GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO., DFT, RPM, BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, FOSTER-WHEELER, LLC, GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, CY GOLDBERG, INGERSOLL-RAND, GEORGIA PACIFIC, MELRATH GASKET COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., RILEY POWER, INC., UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION AND KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO., Appellants No. 2112 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 173 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Filed 10/1/2010 Filed: 9/17/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered June 4, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, No. 001441 October Term, 2006
Before: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and FREEDBERG, JJ.
Opinion by: LAZARUS, J.
In this asbestos personal injury action, Appellant/Cross-Appellee Ericsson, Inc. (Defendant/Ericsson) and Cross-Appellant/Appellee Judith Moore, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Donnie R. Moore, Deceased (Plaintiffs/Moore), appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying Ericsson’s post-trial motions and entering judgment on the molded jury verdict in the amount of $1,190,654.00 in favor of Moore. We affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JEANETTE GARCIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JEANETTE GARCIA No. 2611 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 171 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/16/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered August 4, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Criminal No. 294-2009; CP-52-CR-0000294-2009
Before: BENDER, OTT and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Appellant, Jeanette Garcia, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Pike County Court of Common Pleas following her guilty plea before the magisterial district court. This case presents a novel issue: what relief is available to a defendant who seeks to withdraw a guilty plea made in the magisterial district court after the relevant ten-day period of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 550(D) has expired. We hold that a defendant may file an appeal with the court of common pleas within thirty days after the case is transferred there from the magisterial district court. If that appeal is denied, the defendant will have thirty days thereafter to appeal to the Superior Court. We remand the instant matter for Appellant to file an appeal nunc pro tunc with the Court of Common Pleas. We also deny the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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

CARL J. BARRICK and BRENDA L. v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL,

CARL J. BARRICK and BRENDA L. v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, SODEXHO MANAGEMENT, INC., SODEXHO OPERATIONS, LLC, and LINDA J. LAWRENCE No. 1856 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 170 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/16/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered October 16, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Civil Division, at No. 07-3604.
Before: MUSMANNO, LAZARUS and OLSON, JJ.
Opinion by: OLSON, J.
Appellants, Carl J. Barrick (Mr. Barrick) and Brenda L. Barrick, appeal from the order entered on October 16, 2009, directing the discovery and production of correspondence between counsel for Appellants and Dr. Thomas Green (Dr. Green), Mr. Barrick’s treating physician and designated expert witness at trial. Upon careful consideration, we affirm.

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

BRIAN STEWART, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF CONNIE AND SARAH STEWART, DECEASED, AND AS NATURAL PARENT AND GUARDIAN

BRIAN STEWART, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF CONNIE AND SARAH STEWART, DECEASED, AND AS NATURAL PARENT AND GUARDIAN AND CONSERVATOR OF CARYN STEWART, AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF CHRISTIAN STEWART, GREG BRYAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANDREW BRYAN, DECEASED, SHEILA BRYAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANDREW BRYAN, DECEASED, AND DOUG BRYAN, INDIVIDUALLY v. PRECISION AIRMOTIVE, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS JOINT VENTURER AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO PRECISION AIRMOTIVE CORPORATION, AND PRECISION AEROSPACE CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS JOINT VENTURER, PRECISION AEROSPACE SERVICES, LLC F/K/A PRECISION AEROSPACE GROUP, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS JOINT VENTURER, PRECISION AVIATION PRODUCTS CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS JOINT VENTURER, PRECISION PRODUCTS LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS JOINT VENTURER, ZENITH FUEL SYSTEMS, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS JOINT VENTURER AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO ZENITH FUEL SYSTEMS INC., BURNS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY, AS JOINT VENTURER AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO BORG-WARNER CORP., AND MARVEL-SCHEBLER, A DIVISION OF BORG-WARNER CORP. AND FORMER FUEL SYSTEMS, INC., F/K/A FACET FUEL SYSTEMS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY, AS JOINT VENTURER AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO FACET AEROSPACE PRODUCTS CO., MARK IV INDUSTRIES, INC., INDIVDUALLY, AS JOINT VENTURER AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO FACET ENTERPRISES, INC., FACET AEROSPACE PRODUCTS CO. AND AVCO CORPORATION, D/B/A TEXTRON LYCOMING APPEAL OF: AVCO CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF ITS LYCOMING ENGINES DIVISION, No. 2303 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 168 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/13/2010
	Appeal from the Orders Entered August 10, 2009 and October 15, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No: 003200 March Term 2007
Before: ALLEN, LAZARUS and FREEDBERG, JJ.
Opinion by: FREEDBERG, J.
Appellants, Precision Airmotive, LLC, and Precision Airmotive Corporation (collectively, “Precision”) and AVCO Corporation, on behalf of its Lycoming Engines Division (“Lycoming”) appeal from the orders of the trial court denying in part their respective motions for summary judgment. The Appellees are Brian Stewart, individually and as the personal representative of the Estates of Connie and Sarah Stewart, deceased, as natural parent, guardian and conservator of Caryn Stewart, and as natural guardian of Christian Stewart; Greg Bryan, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Andrew Bryan, deceased; Sheila Bryan, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Andrew Bryan, deceased, and Doug Bryan, individually (collectively, “Appellees”). We quash the appeals in part and affirm the order of the trial court in part.

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

BARBARA L. AUBREY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES R. AUBREY, DECEASED and JENNIFER AUBREY v. PRECISION AIRMOTIVE LLC, PRECISION

BARBARA L. AUBREY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES R. AUBREY, DECEASED and JENNIFER AUBREY v. PRECISION AIRMOTIVE LLC, PRECISION AIRMOTIVE CORPORATION AND MARK IV INDUSTRIES, INC., LYCOMING a/k/a TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIVISION, A DIVISION OF AVCO CORPORATION APPEAL OF: PRECISION AIRMOTIVE LLC, PRECISION AIRMOTIVE CORPORATION AND MARK IV INDUSTRIES, INC., No. 783 , 1062 and 1815 EDA 2008 2010 PA Super 169 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/13/2010
	Appeal from the Orders Entered February 1, 2008 and May 21, 2008, In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): October Term, 2005, No. 001078
Before: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and FREEDBERG, JJ.
Opinion by: FREEDBERG, J.
Appellants, Precision Airmotive, LLC, Precision Airmotive Corporation and Mark IV Industries, Inc. (collectively, “Precision”) and AVCO Corporation, on behalf of its Lycoming Engines Division (“Lycoming”) appeal from the orders of the trial court denying their respective motions for summary judgment. The Appellees are Barbara Aubrey, individually and as executor of the Estate of James R. Aubrey, and Jennifer Aubrey. We quash the appeals in part and affirm the order of the trial court in part.

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

ALBERT LOCKLEY v. CSX TRANSPORTATION INC.

ALBERT LOCKLEY v. CSX TRANSPORTATION INC. No. 1292 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 167 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/13/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment entered March 30, 2009, in Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil, at No. 003999, July Term 2006
Before: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and FREEDBERG, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: FREEDBERG, J.
CSX Transportation Inc. (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Albert Lockley (“Plaintiff”) following a jury trial. We affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ALLEN NMN KELLY

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ALLEN NMN KELLY No. 112 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 165 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/9/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 11, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No. CP-67-CR-0001708-2008
Before: BOWES, J., McEWEN, P.J.E., AND CLELAND, J.
Opinion by: CLELAND, J.
Appellant, Allen Kelly (Kelly), appeals the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of York County entered on December 11, 2008 after Kelly pleaded guilty to driving under the influence – highest rate of alcohol, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(c). Kelly argues the guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally tendered. Specifically,http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=725292761438552781 Kelly argues he was forced into accepting a guilty plea because the trial court erred in granting counsel’s motion to withdraw on the eve of his trial. Because Kelly intentionally forfeited his right to counsel, we conclude his guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally tendered. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

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

IN RE: D.Y. APPEAL OF D.Y.

IN RE: D.Y. APPEAL OF D.Y. No. 1300 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 166 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Filed 9/24/2010 Filed: 9/9/2010
	Appeal from the Order entered April 1, 2009, In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court, Juvenile Division, at No. 0719-08-12
Before: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and FREEDBERG, JJ
Opinion by: LAZARUS, J.
Dissenting Opinion Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
D.Y. appeals from the dispositional order adjudicating him delinquent for burglary, criminal trespass, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property and criminal mischief. On appeal, D.Y. claims that “the lower court erred in admitting hearsay information at [his] adjudicatory hearing, to wit, that the fingerprints on a “10 print card” were his fingerprints.

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

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.S. a/k/a A.P.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: K.S., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: W.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: K.S., FATHER

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.S. a/k/a A.P.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: K.S., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: W.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: K.S., FATHER No. 802 EDA 2010 2010 PA Super 164 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/9/2010
	Appeal from the Orders Entered February 22, 2010, Court of Common Pleas, Monroe County, Criminal Division, at No 67 O.C.A. 2009 and 68 O.C.A. 2009
Before: ALLEN, MUNDY, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
In these consolidated appeals, K.S. (“Father”) appeals from the orders involuntarily terminating his parental rights to his two minor children, A.S. (d.o.b. 7/6/08) and W.S. (d.o.b. 7/3/09), (collectively, “Children”), pursuant to the Adoption Act. We affirm.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JENNIFER ANN BARTON-MARTIN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JENNIFER ANN BARTON-MARTIN No. 1080 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 163 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/8/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered January 26, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-67-CR-0000809-2008.
Before: MUSMANNO, LAZARUS and OLSON, JJ.
Opinion by: OLSON, J.
Appellant, Jennifer Ann Barton-Martin, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on January 26, 2009, as made final when Appellant’s post-sentence motions were deemed denied by operation of law, sentencing her for convictions on two counts of driving under the influence, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) (general impairment) and 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(c) (highest rate). Among other claims raised on appeal, Appellant challenges the admission of blood-alcohol test results offered to establish her guilt under § 3802(c) based on the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009). In Melendez-Diaz, the Court held that lab reports admitted to establish a defendant’s guilt constituted testimonial statements covered by the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and that such reports were inadmissible unless the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the lab analyst at trial.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES HOWARD NEIMAN, JR.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES HOWARD NEIMAN, JR. No. 1747 MDA 2007 2010 PA Super 162 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/8/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, September 27, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No. CP-54-CR-0001870-2005, CP-54-CR-0001871-2005
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, GANTMAN, PANELLA, DONOHUE, SHOGAN, ALLEN, LAZARUS, AND MUNDY, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Appellant, James Howard Neiman, Jr., challenges the judgment of sentence entered following his convictions for numerous sexual offenses against two child victims. We affirm the judgment of sentence.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LESTER MASKER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LESTER MASKER No. 2931 EDA 2009 2010 PA Super 161 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/7/2010
	Appeal from the PCRA Order of September 18, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, Criminal Division, Nos. CR-0000003-07, CP-52-CR-0000026-2007
Before: DONOHUE, SHOGAN, and LAZARUS, JJ.
Opinion by: LAZARUS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Lester Masker appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition, after a hearing, filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9741-46. Masker pled guilty to one count each of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, incest, indecent assault (M-1), corruption of minors, and indecent assault (M-2). The charges stemmed from Masker’s admission that he engaged in oral sex and penetrated the genitals with his tongue of his 13-year-old victim, his adopted daughter, touched her breasts with his hand, masturbated in front of her while at the same time touching and licking her, and touched her between her legs with his hands and licked her body. The inappropriate conduct occurred on and off for almost six years when the victim was eight until she was fourteen-years-old.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC RAUL MUNIZ

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC RAUL MUNIZ No. 962 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 160 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/3/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered April 28, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-36-CR-0003710-2007.
Before: MUSMANNO, LAZARUS and OLSON, JJ.
Opinion by: OLSON, J.
Appellant, Eric Raul Muniz, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on April 28, 2009, sentencing him to incarceration for convictions of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, possession with intent to deliver marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. For the following reasons, we affirm.

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