COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAQUIL ATKINSON

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAQUIL ATKINSON No. 1531 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 239 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 12/10/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered August 30, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal at No(s): CP-40-CR-0000780-2005
Before: GANTMAN and FREEDBERG, JJ., and MCEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: FREEDBERG, J.
This matter is before the Court on Jaquil Atkinson’s appeal from an order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County on August 30, 2007, which denied Appellant’s pre-trial motion for suppression of evidence and to quash the information. We affirm the suppression court’s order.

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

Superior Court - KAREN PRIDGEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LENDON N. PRIDGEN, DECEASED, AND AS PERSONAL

KAREN PRIDGEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LENDON N. PRIDGEN, DECEASED, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY W. CIPPARONE, DECEASED; DENISE DIGGEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL DIGGEN, DECEASED; AND DEBRA JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF TYLER JOHNSON, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF TYLER JOHNSON, A MINOR v. PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, BASCO FLYING SERVICE, INC., TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIVISION, TEXTRON, INC. AND AVCO CORPORATION APPEAL OF: TEXTRON, INC., AVCO CORPORATION AND TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIVISION No. 974 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 90 Atlantic: 974 A.2d 1166 Petition for Reargument Denied 7/28/2009 Filed: 5/15/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered February 19, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at Nos. 003838 and 004008, July Term, 2001.
Before: KLEIN, SHOGAN, JJ. and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Textron, Inc., AVCO Corporation and Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the order entered on February 19, 2008, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas that denied Appellants’ motion for summary judgment. The appellees in this matter are Karen Pridgen, individually and as Personal Representative of the estate of Lendon N. Pridgen, deceased, and as Personal Representative of the estate of Anthony W. Cipparone, deceased; Denise Diggen, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Daniel Diggen, deceased; and Debra Johnson, individually and on behalf of Tyler Johnson, as parent and natural guardian of Tyler Johnson, a minor (collectively “Appellees”). Additionally, we are faced with a motion to quash filed by Appellees. Upon review, we grant Appellees’ motion to quash.

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

Superior Court 7/18/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SHAHRAM NAHAVANDIAN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SHAHRAM NAHAVANDIAN
No. 839 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 159 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 24, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Criminal at No(s): CP-49-CR-0000214-2000 CP-49-CR-0000463-2000
Before: STEVENS, PANELLA, and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County, after this Court vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 583 Pa. 6, 874 A.2d 623 (2005). Here, Appellant contends his new aggregate sentence impermissibly includes a 21 to 48 month sentence of incarceration for Delivery of a Controlled Substance which the court had initially vacated after remand, based upon the Commonwealth’s concession that the delivery charge and conviction was of questionable fairness. Specifically, Appellant argues (1) the Commonwealth was estopped from seeking reimposition of sentence on the delivery charge once it conceded sentence should not be imposed, and (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to reimpose sentence on the delivery count after 30 days had lapsed from the date of its order vacating sentence on the count. We quash.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want really cheap case law? - click here
-----------------------------------------------------

¶ 8 In the case at bar, Appellant filed his notice of appeal within 30 days
after the court denied his February 16, 2007 post-sentence motion, which
itself had been filed within 10 days of when his sentence was reduced to
writing and docketed. As can be seen by the procedural history recounted
supra, however, Appellant’s sentence was first imposed for our purposes
here when the court pronounced it in open court on October 17, 2006.
¶ 9 This Court has held that the date of imposition of sentence in open
court, and not the date on which the sentence is docketed, is the reference
point for computing the time for filing post-sentence motions. See
Commonwealth v. Green, 862 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. 2004) (collecting
cases on Pa.R.Crim.P. 720 and corresponding Commentary and holding time
calculations used to determine timeliness of post-sentence motions and
notice of appeal refer to date on which sentence is actually imposed,
regardless of when sentence is docketed).

Superior Court 7/1/08 - RANDOLPH D. DAHL SR. AND MARY K. DAHL v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al.

RANDOLPH D. DAHL SR. AND MARY K. DAHL v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, NATIONAL REAL ESTATE INFORMATION SERVICES and INSURANCE SOLUTIONS CONCEPT, INC.
No. 1333 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 142 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered June 25, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, Civil, at A.D. No. 01-10951.
Before: MUSMANNO, POPOVICH and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: HUDOCK, J.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s final judgment entered in this case. We affirm.

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


Appellants raise the following issues on appeal:

1. Did the Trial Court err in dismissing [Appellants’] RESPA claim against [Ameriquest] by determining as a matter of law that the settlement escrow account created to make payment of hazard insurance on [Appellants’] property was not covered by RESPA?

2. Did the Trial Court err in dismissing [Appellants’] RESPA claim against [NREIS] by determining as a matter of law that NREIS was not a “servicer” of the mortgage as defined by RESPA?

Appellees also argue that Appellants’ failure to file a post-trial motion under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1(c)(2) waives all issues on appeal.7 Rule 227.1(c) provides that:

(c) Post-trial motions shall be filed within ten days after
(1) verdict, discharge of the jury because of inability to agree, or nonsuit in the case of a jury trial; or
(2) notice of nonsuit or the filing of the decision in the case of a trial without jury.

Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c). However, in this case, there was no trial on the merits of the RESPA claims. Appellants challenge the trial court’s dismissal of their RESPA claims against Appellees; Appellants do not make claims involving issues raised during a trial or which must be presented to the trial court through post-trial motions in order to be preserved. DiGregorio v. Keystone Health Plan East, 840 A.2d 361, 365 (Pa. Super 2003) (holding that a motion for post-trial relief “may not be filed pursuant to an order disposing of a motion for summary judgment or other motion relating to a proceeding other than trial”). Thus, Appellants have not waived their RESPA claims by failing to file a post-trial motion. Therefore, Ameriquest’s motion to quash is denied.

Superior Court 6/25/08 - 1313466 ONTARIO, INC. v. JEFFREY N. CARR

1313466 ONTARIO, INC. v. JEFFREY N. CARRAPPEAL OF: U.S. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, TRUSTEE AS THE ASSIGNEE OF ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY
No. 1684 and 1686 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 135 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/25/2008
Appeal from the Order Dated September 11, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria CountyCivil Division at No. 2006-5314 and 2006-5315
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BENDER and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), Appellant, appeals from a trial court order denying its petition for intervention. The underlying action is a judgment mortgage foreclosure, filed by 1313466 Ontario, Inc. (Ontario), Appellee, against real property owned by Jeffrey N. Carr (Carr). For the reasons that follow, we quash this appeal.

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

Superior Court 6/17/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CLARENCE HUNTER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CLARENCE HUNTER
No. 2040 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 129 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/17/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of May 31, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at Nos. CP-51-CR-0206571-2006 and CP-51-CR-1208021-2005
Before: ORIE MELVIN, COLVILLE* and FITZGERALD**, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
This case is a direct appeal from judgment of sentence. Appellant claims the court erred in denying his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea and in imposing an excessive sentence. We quash.

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

Superior Court 4/18/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JUSTIN WEIGLE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JUSTIN WEIGLE
No. 119 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 69 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/18/2008
Appeal from the Order entered December 19, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No. 0606-0421 1/1.
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is a Commonwealth appeal from the Order granting a motion to quash robbery charges that were included in informations filed following a preliminary hearing wherein the robbery charges were previously discharged against Appellee, Justin Weigle, for failure to establish a prima facie case. The question presented by this appeal concerns whether or not robbery is a separate non-cognate offense to the crimes held over at the preliminary hearing. We find that it is and, therefore, affirm.

Superior Court 3/26/08 -

PHILLIP DRUOT, AN INDIVIDUAL AND SHAREHOLDER OF STONEHILL RESTAURANT, INC., AND ALONA DRUOT, ET UX. v. JERRILYN COULTER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS AN OFFICER OF STONEHILL RESTAURANT, INC., AND GEORGE VAN VUGT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN OFFICER OF STONEHILL RESTAURANT, INC., AND STONEHILL
RESTAURANT, INC.No. 250 EDA 2008 2008 PA Super 49 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/26/2008
Appeal from the Order dated November 14, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County,No. 869-Civil-2003
Before: KLEIN, BENDER and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: OPINION PER CURIAM
This appeal has been taken from the order of November 14, 2007 granting the motion of appellees, defendants below, for summary judgment as to all counts of the complaint filed by appellants, plaintiffs below. The November 14th order did not dispose of any of the seven counterclaims filed by appellees in the trial court. Appellees have filed a motion to quash this appeal as interlocutory. We grant Appellees’ motion to quash.

Superior Court 3/20/08 - DR. ROGER STEWART v. DR. GREGORY NICOSIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND DR. GREGORY NICOSIA PARTNER TRADING AS ADVANCED DIAGNOSTICS

DR. ROGER STEWART v. DR. GREGORY NICOSIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND DR. GREGORY NICOSIA PARTNER TRADING AS ADVANCED DIAGNOSTICS AND ADVANCE DIAGNOSTICS, INC. APPEAL OF: DR. GREGORY NICOSIA
No. 1779 WDA 2005, 1135 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 46 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/20/2008
Appeal from the Orders dated September 14 and 22, 2005 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil No. GD 01-013980 (Equity); GD 01-014628 (Law)
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
The consolidated appeal in this matter purports to lie from an order certified by the trial court as final under Pa.R.A.P. 341(c) in a declaratory judgment action brought to determine whether the parties’ business dealings could be characterized as a partnership. We quash, as the order under consideration is not final and appealable.

Superior Court 3/14/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ALBERT J. MINCAVAGE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ALBERT J. MINCAVAGE
No. 1012 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 42 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/14/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered April 30, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-54-CR-0000657-2006.
Before: ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, JJ. AND MCEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellant, Albert Mincavage, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of possession of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Upon review, we quash the appeal.