Showing posts with label Equal Protection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Equal Protection. Show all posts

Monday, November 8, 2010

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THOMAS A. LAMONDA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THOMAS A. LAMONDA
No. 1972 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 202 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 11/8/2010

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 22, 2009
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No. CP-36-CR-0001436-2008
Before: BENDER, SHOGAN and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dissenting Statement by: SHOGAN, J.
Thomas A. Lamonda appeals the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of two counts of Homicide by Vehicle (HBV), and one count each of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance, Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic, Driving Vehicle at Safe Speed, and Unlawful Activities (Operating a Vehicle in Unsafe Condition); 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3732(a), 3802(d)(1)(iii), 3309(1), 3361, 4107(b)(2) (respectively). Lamonda contends that the evidence was not legally sufficient to sustain his convictions of the latter three crimes as predicate offenses of HBV and that his aggregate sentence of 40 to 120 months’ incarceration was manifestly excessive. He asserts further that the Court abused its discretion and violated his right to Equal Protection by imposing sentence for his HBV convictions based on his contemporaneous conviction of DUI, as that conviction was itself based upon the presence in his bloodstream of an inert metabolite of cocaine. We conclude that because the evidence failed to demonstrate that the metabolic by-product in question had a causal relationship with Lamonda’s HBV, imposition of sentence for HBV based upon the presence of the metabolite is not supported by a rational basis related to the purpose of the HBV statute. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Superior Court - ROBERT VANAMAN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF VIOLET VANAMAN, DECEASED AND ROBERT VANAMAN, WIDOWER IN HIS OWN RIGHT v. DAP, INC. AND CROW

ROBERT VANAMAN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF VIOLET VANAMAN, DECEASED AND ROBERT VANAMAN, WIDOWER IN HIS OWN RIGHT v. DAP, INC. AND CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC.
No. 334 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 27 Atlantic: 966 A.2d 603 Filed: 2/11/2009

Appeal from the Judgment entered September 13, 2006
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil at No(s): January Term, 2004 -- No. 3713
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, GANTMAN, PANELLA, and DONOHUE, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Following settlement and the entry of judgment on September 13, 2006, with regard to the last remaining defendant in a mass asbestos products liability action, Appellant Robert Vanaman, as Executor of the Estate of his wife, Violet Vanaman, and in his own right, presents challenges to the orders entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granting summary judgment in favor of two manufacturers, Crown Cork & Seal Company (hereinafter Crown Cork), and DAP, Inc. (hereinafter DAP). We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - JON BURGER AND LOIS BURGER, H/W, v. OWENS ILLINOIS, INC., CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., DAP, INC. AND PNEUMO ABEX LLC

JON BURGER AND LOIS BURGER, H/W, v. OWENS ILLINOIS, INC., CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., DAP, INC. AND PNEUMO ABEX LLC
No. 2836 EDA 2006 2009 PA Super 26 Atlantic: 966 A.2d 611 Filed: 2/11/2009

Appeal from the Judgment entered September 13, 2006
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil at No(s): January Term, 2006 -- No. 4920
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, GANTMAN, PANELLA, and DONOHUE, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Following settlement and the entry of judgment on September 13, 2006, with regard to the last remaining defendant in a mass asbestos products liability action, Appellants Jon and Lois Burger present challenges to the orders entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granting summary judgment in favor of four manufacturers, Crown Cork & Seal Company (hereinafter Crown Cork), DAP, Inc. (hereinafter DAP), Pneumo Abex LLC (successor by merger to Pneumo Abex Corporation) (hereinafter Pneumo Abex), and Owens-Illinois, Inc. (hereinafter Owens-Illinois). We affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Friday, February 6, 2009

Superior Court - BRUCE JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THORNTON JOHNSON v. AMERICAN STANDARD, AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., A.W. CHESTERTON, INC., BE

BRUCE JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THORNTON JOHNSON v. AMERICAN STANDARD, AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., A.W. CHESTERTON, INC., BENJAMIN FOSTER CO., BRAND INSULATIONS, BROWN BOVERI CORP., BURNHAM BOILER CORP., CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, CRANE CO., DEMMING DIVISION, CRANE PACKING, CROUSE-HINDS, CROWN CORK & SEAL, INC., DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., EASTERN GUNNITE CO., INC., GEOGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, GOULD PUMPS, INC., GREEN TWEED & COMPANY, INC., HAJOCA PLUMBING CO., INGERSOLL RAND CO., J.H. REFRACTORIES CO., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE, NOSROC CORP., OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., PECORA CORPORATION, RILEY STOKER CORPORATION, UNION CARBIDE CORP., WALTER B. GALLAGHER CO., WEIL MCLAIN CO., VIACOM/WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, BONDEX INTERNATIONAL INC., CLEAVER BROOKS CO., DURABLA, DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.,GOODYEAR CANADA, INC., HERCULES CHEMICAL CO., HERMAN GOLDNER COMPANY, IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., ITT CORPORATION, MELRATH GASKET, INC., PARS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, RITE HOSE & PACKING, INC., ROCKBESTOS COMPANY, MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY HOUSE
APPEAL OF: BRUCE JOHNSON
DOROTHY MAUGER, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL MAUGER AND IN HER OWN RIGHT v. A.W. CHESTERTON, INC., CERTAINTEED CORP., INC., CRANE CO., CRANE PACKING, CROWN CORK & SEAL CO., INC., DURABLA MANUFACTURING CO., FOSECO, INC., GARLOCK, INC., GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP., GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., GOODYEAR CANADA, INC., GOULDS PUMPS, INC., GREEN TWEED & CO., INC., HERCULES CHEMICAL CO., J.H. REFRACTORIES CO., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE, NOSROC CORP., PECORA CORP., RAPID AMERICAN CORP., UNION CARBIDE CORP., VIACOM/WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION APPEAL OF: DOROTHY MAUGER
DOLORES STEA, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH STEA AND IN HER OWN RIGHT v. A.W. CHESTERTON, INC., CRANE CO., DEMMING DIVISION, CROWN CORK & SEAL CO., INC., FOSTER WHEELER CORP., INC., GARLOCK, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., GOULDS PUMPS, INC., GREEN TWEED & CO., INC., MELRATH GASKET, INC., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE, PECORA CORPORATION, RAPID AMERICAN CORP., BEVCO INDUSTRIES, WEIL MCLAIN CO., VIACOM/WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.
APPEAL OF: DOLORES STEA

No. 2954, 2955 and 2956 EDA 2006 2009 PA Super 22 Atlantic: 966 A.2d 573 Filed: 2/6/2009

Appeal from the Orders entered on
October 3, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Civil Division, at Nos. 3609, November Term, 2005, 2154, November Term, 2004 and 1631 November Term, 2004
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, GANTMAN, PANELLA, AND DONOHUE, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
In these asbestos cases, Appellants Bruce Johnson, et al. appeal from the orders dated October 3, 2006, granting summary judgment to Appellee Crown Cork & Seal Co. (“Crown”). The trial court reasoned that Crown was insulated from liability by 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1929.1 (“the Statute”). Appellants agree that the Statute, on its face, protects Crown. Appellants argue, however, that the Statute: (1) violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution; (2) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution; and (3) violates various enactment provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution. We conclude that Appellants lack standing to raise these constitutional challenges. Therefore, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here