Superior Court - COVE CENTRE, INC. v. WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC.

COVE CENTRE, INC. v. WESTHAFER CONSTRUCTION, INC. No. 1463 MDA 2007 2009 PA Super 10 Atlantic: 965 A.2d 259 Filed: 1/26/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 23, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County Civil Division at No. 2005-247
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BENDER and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Westhafer Construction, Inc. (Westhafer) appeals the judgment entered in favor of Cove Centre, Inc. (Cove Centre) following imposition of discovery sanctions by the trial court. The court’s order declared requests for admission to be admitted, precluded expert testimony, and entered judgment for the amount disputed by the parties in the sum of $293,701.76. Westhafer contends that the court’s order constitutes an abuse of discretion as the court imposed the sanction without first allowing the defendant to be heard or entering an order compelling discovery. The trial court, upon reconsideration of the order, concluded that it had erred but determined that it was divested of jurisdiction given the pendency of an appeal before this Court. Upon review, we conclude that entry of the order did exceed the court’s discretion under the circumstances. Accordingly, we reverse the order, vacate the judgment, and reinstate the underlying action.

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

Superior Court 9/22/08 - THE LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS T. HARRIS, ESQUIRE, AND DOUGLAS T. HARRIS, ESQUIRE, v. PHILADELPHIA WATERFRONT PARTNERS, LP........

THE LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS T. HARRIS, ESQUIRE, AND DOUGLAS T. HARRIS, ESQUIRE, v. PHILADELPHIA WATERFRONT PARTNERS, LP AND CHARLES L. KAMPS III AND SCOTT A. BLOW AND PATRICK T. HANLEY AND TODD KAMPS PHILADELPHIA WATERFRONT PARTNERS LP AND PHILADELPHIA WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, CHARLES L. KAMPS III AND SCOTT A. BLOW AND PATRICK T. HANLEY v. CHURCHILL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, CHURCHILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LP, CHURCHILL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, LP, JOSEPH F. LOGUE, JR. AND DOUGLAS T. HARRIS, ESQUIRE
No. 2872 & 2873 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 222 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/22/2008
Appeal from the Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, No(s): June Term 2007, No. 02576 and January Term 2007, No. 03811
Before: BOWES, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: BOWES, J.
At 2872 EDA 2007, Philadelphia Waterfront Partners, LP (PWP), Charles L. Kamps III, Scott A. Blow, Patrick T. Hanley, and Todd Kamps appeal from the October 22, 2007, Order granting The Law Office of Douglas T. Harris, Esquire and Douglas T. Harris, Esquire’s motion to compel and directing production of aforementioned appellants’ Blow and Hanley’s broken computers for discovery. At 2873 EDA 2007, PWP, Philadelphia Waterfront Development, LLC (PWD), Kamps III, Blow, and Hanley appeal from a companion Order, also dated October 22, 2007, granting Harris’s motion to compel and also directing production of Blow and Hanley’s broken computers. On December 10, 2007, we granted PWP, et al.’s application for consolidation.

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

Superior Court 8/15/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.

No. 364 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 189 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/15/2008
Appeal from the Order entered January 11, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of PhiladelphiaCounty, Family Court, No. JP#76-06-08
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals an order precluding evidence and dismissing serious charges against a juvenile for the Commonwealth’s failure to meet what can only be described as a very brief discovery deadline. We agree with the Commonwealth and reverse for an adjudicatory hearing

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

Superior Court 8/6/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM SMITH

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM SMITH
No. 2668 EDA 2005 2008 PA Super 179 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/6/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No. CP#0411-0910 1/1
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, PANELLA, DONOHUE, AND ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered August 18, 2005 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing its case against William Smith (“Smith”). Smith was charged with aggravated assault, criminal mischief, fleeing police officers, possession of an instrument of crime, recklessly endangering another person, and simple assault based upon an incident which occurred on August 21, 2004.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here


Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it
precluded the testimony of essential witnesses
whose statements had been provided to defendant
eight days prior to trial, and then discharged the
case when the Commonwealth indicated that it
intended to appeal that ruling?
Commonwealth’s brief at 4. We begin by noting that decisions involving
discovery in criminal cases lie within the discretion of the trial court.
Commonwealth v. Rucci, 543 Pa. 261, 283, 670 A.2d 1129, 1140 (1996),
cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 (1997). The court’s ruling will not be reversed
absent abuse of that discretion. Id.

Superior Court 6/4/08 - T.M., as parent and legal guardian for D.M., a minor

T.M., as parent and legal guardian for D.M., a minor ELWYN, INC. and ELWYN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL and MARKEITH EUGENE AIKENS APPEALS OF: ELWYN, INC. and ELWYN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL
No. 805 & 1002 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 113 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/4/2008
Appeal from the Orders of March 26, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Civil Division at No. 05-14636
Before: BENDER, TAMILIA AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Concurring Statement by: COLVILLE, J.
Elwyn, Inc. and Elwyn Alternative School (collectively, “Elwyn”) appeal from two discovery orders, both dated March 23, 2007, and docketed on March 26, 2007. For the following reasons, we hold that the discovery orders at issue are immediately appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine and that the trial court failed to provide an adequate analysis to justify the breadth of the discovery orders. Accordingly, we vacate the orders and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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