IN RE: ESTATE OF AMELIA J. PIET APPEAL OF: MARY PIET BLACK IN RE: ESTATE OF AMELIA J. PIET, DECEASED APPEAL OF: ANN L. BALL and EDWARD J. PIET
No. 123, 201 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 72 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/17/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division, No(s): 02-04-2759
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Dissenting Statement by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Mary Piet Black appeals from the portion of the December 12, 2006, Order denying her exceptions to the orphans’ court’s conclusions of law and findings of fact. Co-executors Ann L. Ball and Edward J. Piet cross-appeal from that portion of the Order denying their exceptions to the court’s conclusions and findings.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Superior Court 4/17/08 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EDWARD NUNN
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EDWARD NUNN
No. 1133 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 71 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/17/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 12, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County, Criminal Division, at Nos. CP-35-CR-0001711-2006, CP-35-CR-0001712-2006, CP-35-CR-0001713-2006 and CP-35-CR-0001714-2006
Before: BOWES, SHOGAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Appellant, Edward Nunn, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on June 12, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, after a jury found him guilty of robbery, theft by unlawful taking, simple assault, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, possessing instruments of crime, and disorderly conduct. We affirm.
No. 1133 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 71 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/17/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 12, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County, Criminal Division, at Nos. CP-35-CR-0001711-2006, CP-35-CR-0001712-2006, CP-35-CR-0001713-2006 and CP-35-CR-0001714-2006
Before: BOWES, SHOGAN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Appellant, Edward Nunn, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on June 12, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, after a jury found him guilty of robbery, theft by unlawful taking, simple assault, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, possessing instruments of crime, and disorderly conduct. We affirm.
Superior Court 4/16/08 - RICHARD A. DANZ v. CINDY L. DANZ
RICHARD A. DANZ v. CINDY L. DANZ
No. 1506 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 70 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/16/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County, Civil Division, No. 2007-97
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Cindy L. Danz appeals the July 18, 2007, Order denying her Motion to Vacate or Open a Decree of Divorce.
On October 8, 2007, the trial court issued an Opinion wherein it concluded wife had waived her challenge to improper venue by failing to file preliminary objections. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied on Pa.R.C.P. 1920.1(b), Definitions. Conformity to Civil Action, which states: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the procedure in [a divorce] action shall be in accordance with the rules relating to a civil action.” The trial court also relied on Pa.R.C.P. 1006(e), Venue. Change of Venue, which provides in pertinent part: “Improper venue shall be raised by preliminary objection and if not so raised shall be waived.”
Our standard of review over an order denying a motion to open or vacate a divorce decree requires us to determine whether an abuse of discretion has been committed. Egan, supra at 407, quoting Foley v. Foley, 572 A.2d 6, 9 (Pa.Super. 1990) (additional citation omitted). A motion requesting that a divorce decree be opened or vacated lies when the motion alleges the decree suffers from a fatal defect apparent upon the face of the record, was procured by either intrinsic or extrinsic fraud, should be voided in light of newly discovered evidence, or was entered by a court without subject matter jurisdiction. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3332, Opening or vacating decrees.
No. 1506 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 70 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/16/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County, Civil Division, No. 2007-97
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Cindy L. Danz appeals the July 18, 2007, Order denying her Motion to Vacate or Open a Decree of Divorce.
On October 8, 2007, the trial court issued an Opinion wherein it concluded wife had waived her challenge to improper venue by failing to file preliminary objections. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied on Pa.R.C.P. 1920.1(b), Definitions. Conformity to Civil Action, which states: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the procedure in [a divorce] action shall be in accordance with the rules relating to a civil action.” The trial court also relied on Pa.R.C.P. 1006(e), Venue. Change of Venue, which provides in pertinent part: “Improper venue shall be raised by preliminary objection and if not so raised shall be waived.”
Our standard of review over an order denying a motion to open or vacate a divorce decree requires us to determine whether an abuse of discretion has been committed. Egan, supra at 407, quoting Foley v. Foley, 572 A.2d 6, 9 (Pa.Super. 1990) (additional citation omitted). A motion requesting that a divorce decree be opened or vacated lies when the motion alleges the decree suffers from a fatal defect apparent upon the face of the record, was procured by either intrinsic or extrinsic fraud, should be voided in light of newly discovered evidence, or was entered by a court without subject matter jurisdiction. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3332, Opening or vacating decrees.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Superior Court 4/14/08 - YURIY KOPYTIN AND YELENA KOPYTIN v. WILLIAM ASCHINGER AND ANNE ASCHINGER
YURIY KOPYTIN AND YELENA KOPYTIN v. WILLIAM ASCHINGER AND ANNE ASCHINGER
No. 98 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 68 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/14/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered January 9, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil No. 2003-03731
Before: KLEIN, BENDER and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment for Appellant in the amount of $2,540.92 representing unreimbursed medical expenses in an action based on claims of personal injury incurred in an automobile accident. Finding the award inadequate, and the trial court’s construction of Pa.R.C.P. 1311.1 incorrect, we vacate and remand.
Appellant has presented six issues, first challenging the amount of the verdict as inconsistent with the evidence, and then assigning error to the trial court’s refusal to allow publication to the jury of his expert reports, its adverse ruling on Appellant’s objection to Appellee’s adverse inference argument during closing statements, its admission of Appellee’s surveillance tape, and its allowing Appellee to cross-examine Appellant’s medical expert on prior testimony and documents relating to other patients.
No. 98 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 68 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/14/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered January 9, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil No. 2003-03731
Before: KLEIN, BENDER and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment for Appellant in the amount of $2,540.92 representing unreimbursed medical expenses in an action based on claims of personal injury incurred in an automobile accident. Finding the award inadequate, and the trial court’s construction of Pa.R.C.P. 1311.1 incorrect, we vacate and remand.
Appellant has presented six issues, first challenging the amount of the verdict as inconsistent with the evidence, and then assigning error to the trial court’s refusal to allow publication to the jury of his expert reports, its adverse ruling on Appellant’s objection to Appellee’s adverse inference argument during closing statements, its admission of Appellee’s surveillance tape, and its allowing Appellee to cross-examine Appellant’s medical expert on prior testimony and documents relating to other patients.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Superior Court 4/3/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JULES JETTE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JULES JETTE
No. 2834 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 59 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/3/2008
Appeal from the PCRA order dated September 28, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCriminal No. 0101-1188 1/1
Before: HUDOCK, J., MCEWEN, P.J.E., and FITZGERALD, J.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Jules Jette, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. Appellant and his counsel have also filed petitions to remand for appointment of new counsel. We hold that PCRA counsel may not justify his failure to argue an issue by claiming that the petitioner failed to develop it properly in his pro se PCRA petition. We further hold that, in providing legal analysis to this Court in a petition for remand, counsel is bound by the same requirements to provide supporting citations as he would be in his appellate brief. Accordingly, we remand for counsel to provide a more complete analysis to this Court for review.
No. 2834 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 59 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/3/2008
Appeal from the PCRA order dated September 28, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCriminal No. 0101-1188 1/1
Before: HUDOCK, J., MCEWEN, P.J.E., and FITZGERALD, J.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Jules Jette, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. Appellant and his counsel have also filed petitions to remand for appointment of new counsel. We hold that PCRA counsel may not justify his failure to argue an issue by claiming that the petitioner failed to develop it properly in his pro se PCRA petition. We further hold that, in providing legal analysis to this Court in a petition for remand, counsel is bound by the same requirements to provide supporting citations as he would be in his appellate brief. Accordingly, we remand for counsel to provide a more complete analysis to this Court for review.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Superior Court 4/2/08 - MICHAEL S. HUTCHISON, JR., by MARY J. HUTCHISON, Parent and Natural Guardian v. FATHER FRANCIS LUDDY, MICHAEL E. SERVINSKY, Ex
MICHAEL S. HUTCHISON, JR., by MARY J. HUTCHISON, Parent and Natural Guardian v. FATHER FRANCIS LUDDY, MICHAEL E. SERVINSKY, Executor of the Estate of JAMES J. HOGAN, DECEASED, and DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN
No. 2096 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 58 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/2/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered October 4, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of BLAIR County CIVIL at No(s): 1175 C.P., 1987
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, and PANELLA, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Michael S. Hutchison, Jr., by Mary J. Hutchison, parent and natural guardian, appeals from the order entered on October 4, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County.
In this latest controversy, we consider whether the entry of judgment non obstante verdicto (“JNOV”) by this Court on two previous occasions, both of which were subsequently vacated by our Supreme Court, deprives Michael of post-judgment interest on a claim for punitive damages, for the period of time that the JNOV was in effect, when the damage award was ultimately affirmed. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the erroneous entry of JNOV does not preclude Michael from collecting postjudgment interest dating back to the date of the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we reverse.
No. 2096 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 58 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/2/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered October 4, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of BLAIR County CIVIL at No(s): 1175 C.P., 1987
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, and PANELLA, JJ.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Michael S. Hutchison, Jr., by Mary J. Hutchison, parent and natural guardian, appeals from the order entered on October 4, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County.
In this latest controversy, we consider whether the entry of judgment non obstante verdicto (“JNOV”) by this Court on two previous occasions, both of which were subsequently vacated by our Supreme Court, deprives Michael of post-judgment interest on a claim for punitive damages, for the period of time that the JNOV was in effect, when the damage award was ultimately affirmed. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the erroneous entry of JNOV does not preclude Michael from collecting postjudgment interest dating back to the date of the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we reverse.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Superior Court 4/1/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN LEE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN LEE
No. 720 and 890 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 56 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence enteredMarch 19, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas ofAllegheny County, Criminal, at No. CC 200610594.
Before: HUDOCK, MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
These consolidated appeals are from the judgment of sentence and restitution Order entered against John Lee (“Lee”) following his conviction of cruelty to animals. The trial court sentenced Lee to four years of probation and restitution in the amount of $3,156.00. We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing. We affirm the trial court’s Order of restitution.
No. 720 and 890 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 56 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence enteredMarch 19, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas ofAllegheny County, Criminal, at No. CC 200610594.
Before: HUDOCK, MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
These consolidated appeals are from the judgment of sentence and restitution Order entered against John Lee (“Lee”) following his conviction of cruelty to animals. The trial court sentenced Lee to four years of probation and restitution in the amount of $3,156.00. We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing. We affirm the trial court’s Order of restitution.
Superior Court 4/1/08 - IN RE: Z.S.W., a/k/a Z.J.
IN RE: Z.S.W., a/k/a Z.J.APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIESAPPEAL OF: Z.S.W.
No. 590 and 571 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 55 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on March 2, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,Orphans' Court Division, No. CYS 131 of 2006
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
In these consolidated appeals, the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (“CYF”) and Z.S.W., through her the guardian ad litem, appeal from the Order of the trial court denying the Petition to involuntarily terminate L.C.’s parental rights to his daughter Z.S.W. (D.O.B. 7/29/04). We reverse and remand.
No. 590 and 571 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 55 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Order entered on March 2, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,Orphans' Court Division, No. CYS 131 of 2006
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
In these consolidated appeals, the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (“CYF”) and Z.S.W., through her the guardian ad litem, appeal from the Order of the trial court denying the Petition to involuntarily terminate L.C.’s parental rights to his daughter Z.S.W. (D.O.B. 7/29/04). We reverse and remand.
Superior Court 4/1/08 - JOHN EVANS v. SODEXHO
JOHN EVANS v. SODEXHO
No. 1885 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 53 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered June 6, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh CountyCivil Division at No. 2006-C-577
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
John Evans (“Evans”) appeals the order entered June 6, 2007, granting defendant Sodexho’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Evans’ complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
No. 1885 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 53 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered June 6, 2007,in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh CountyCivil Division at No. 2006-C-577
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS AND KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.
John Evans (“Evans”) appeals the order entered June 6, 2007, granting defendant Sodexho’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Evans’ complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
Superior Court 4/1/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GARY BANKS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GARY BANKS
No. 1075 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 57 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 11, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette CountyCriminal, No. 741 of 2006
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN, AND TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Gary Banks, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, after a jury convicted him of aggravated assault and simple assault. Appellant asks us to determine whether the trial court abridged Appellant’s “absolute” constitutional right to compel the attendance at trial of his four proposed inmate-witnesses. We hold under both federal and state law, the trial court generally has discretion on motions to secure witnesses and properly exercised its discretion in this case to deny transport orders for Appellant’s proposed inmate-witnesses, absent a plausible showing the witnesses would provide material testimony favorable to Appellant’s defense. Accordingly, we affirm.
No. 1075 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 57 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/1/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 11, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette CountyCriminal, No. 741 of 2006
Before: BENDER, GANTMAN, AND TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Gary Banks, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, after a jury convicted him of aggravated assault and simple assault. Appellant asks us to determine whether the trial court abridged Appellant’s “absolute” constitutional right to compel the attendance at trial of his four proposed inmate-witnesses. We hold under both federal and state law, the trial court generally has discretion on motions to secure witnesses and properly exercised its discretion in this case to deny transport orders for Appellant’s proposed inmate-witnesses, absent a plausible showing the witnesses would provide material testimony favorable to Appellant’s defense. Accordingly, we affirm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
