Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In an interlocutory appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the "contours" of the Board of Claims' exclusive jurisdiction pertaining to procurement litigation against state agencies. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine whether such jurisdiction foreclosed original-jurisdiction proceedings in Commonwealth Court, challenging an Department of General Services' (DGS) cancellation of a request for proposals and request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The matter arose from a 2010 DGS request for proposals for the design, development, implementation, and maintenance of a computer control system to monitor slot machines at gaming venues across the Commonwealth. The plan was to replace an existing system which had been provided by Intervenor-Appellant, GTECH Corporation. GTECH and Appellee Scientific Games International, Inc. (SGI), each submitted proposals, and DGS selected SGI for the award and proceeded with contract negotiations. GTECH was informed that the contract had been awarded to SGI and submitted a protest. Two months later, DGS’s Deputy Secretary for Administration issued a final determination denying GTECH’s protest in material part, with prejudice. GTECH appealed the determination and requested, among other things, that the request for proposals be cancelled. Subsequently, DGS announced that it was canceling the request for proposals and sent a letter to SGI indicating "with little elaboration" that the cancelation was in the best interests of the Commonwealth. Subsequently, SGI commenced an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Departments of Revenue and General Services in the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction and petitioned for a preliminary injunction. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that contractors, bidders, and offerors have limited recourse and remedies: "[r]elative to controversies in matters arising from procurement contracts with Commonwealth agencies, the Board of Claims retains exclusive jurisdiction (subject to all jurisdictional prerequisites), which is not to be supplanted by a court of law through an exercise of original jurisdiction. As to challenges to cancellations of solicitations asserted under Section 521 of the Procurement Code, the Legislature did not implement any waiver of sovereign immunity and afforded no remedy to aggrieved bidders and offerors which have not yet entered into an executed contract with a Commonwealth agency." View "Scientific Games Int'l v. GTech Corp." on Justia Law

The Commonwealth appealed a superior court order that quashed an interlocutory appeal of a trial court order that granted Appellee Milton Scarborough's motion for post-conviction DNA testing. Appellee's criminal convictions arose from the robbery and stabbing deaths of a mother and her two children in their home in 1976. Appellee was convicted by a jury of burglary, robbery, theft, conspiracy, and three counts of murder in the third degree. He received an aggregate sentence of 30-60 years incarceration. Appellee pursued a direct appeal, and his convictions and sentence were affirmed by the Superior Court. Appellee next pursued a petition for collateral relief under the former Post Conviction Hearing Act, which was denied by the trial court, and the denial was upheld by the Superior Court. In 2008, Appellee filed his PCRA petition raising two claims for collateral relief: a claim of "after discovered" exculpatory evidence and a "Brady" violation. With respect to the PCRA petition, the court found the petition untimely. With regard to the DNA testing, the court ordered testing of a palm print, fingernail clippings and blood evidence from the scene of the murders. The Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal from the DNA testing order, arguing that the trial court used an incorrect standard in evaluating Appellee’s request for DNA testing, namely, that the trial court considered only whether the DNA testing could be favorable to Appellee, not whether it could establish his actual innocence, which the Commonwealth contended was the proper standard. In the court's opinion, the hearing judge noted the lack of any cases in which the Commonwealth appealed an order granting DNA testing, and suggested that the DNA testing order was "perhaps" interlocutory. Even so, the Commonwealth did not request the court to amend the order to include the necessary certification for a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order, nor did the Commonwealth apply to the Superior Court for permission to appeal the order as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1311(b). Appellee filed an application in Superior Court seeking to have the Commonwealth’s appeal quashed or dismissed on the grounds that it was taken from an interlocutory order. The Commonwealth did not file a response to this application; however, it asserted in the statement of jurisdiction in its brief to the Superior Court that the order granting the DNA testing was final and appealable. The Superior Court subsequently quashed the appeal. After careful review, the Supreme Court concluded that the order granting a motion for post-conviction DNA testing in this case was a final order. Therefore the Court reversed the Superior Court's order and remanded the case for consideration of the merits of the issues presented in the Commonwealth’s appeal. View "Pennsylvania v. Scarborough" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this matter arose from direct appeal of an order that denied injunctive and declaratory relief by an en banc panel of the Commonwealth Court regarding various constitutional challenges to a law enacted by the General Assembly known as "Act 108 of 2011." Specifically, it was alleged that Act 108 was violative of: (1) the "single subject rule" of Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; (2) the separation of powers doctrine of Article V, Sections 1 and 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution establishing a unified judicial system supervised by the Supreme Court; and (3) the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under the void for vagueness doctrine. The Commonwealth Court, in a 4-3 decision, rejected the constitutional challenges and dismissed the action. After oral argument and consideration of the Commonwealth Court record, the Supreme Court concluded that with regard to the Article III, Section 3 single subject challenge, Act 108 was unconstitutional. Given this disposition, the Court did not consider the remaining arguments. View "PA State Ass'n of Jury Commissioners v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court centered on the award of attorney's fees against an insurance company under the peer-review provisions of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). The MVFRL limits the amount providers may charge for treatment, products or services rendered to patients injured in automobile accidents where the injury is covered by an insurance policy. An individual obtained treatment from Appellee Herd Chiropractic Clinic for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The insurance company submitted the clinic's invoices to a Peer Review Organization (PRO) pursuant to the MVFRL. The PRO determined that certain treatments were not necessary or reasonable, and the insurance company subsequently refused to pay for such treatment The Clinic then sued for unpaid bills, plus treble damages and attorney's fees under the theory that the MVFRL authorized payment. The Common Pleas court found an award of fees proper and mandatory under the MVFRL. The Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, reversed, finding that the MVFRL did not allow for what amounted to "fee shifting" by the lower courts' outcome: "We acknowledge [the Clinic's] concerns with the financial incentives in the peer-review industry and with the fact that litigation costs incurred by providers may discourage legitimate challenges. The fee accruals here – in the amount of $27,000 to vindicate a $1380 claim - present a stark example of the difficulty. . . . Nevertheless, fee shifting raises a host of mixed policy considerations in and of itself, which this Court has found are best left to the General Assembly, in the absence of contractual allocation or some other recognized exception to the general, American rule." View "Herd Chiropractic Clinic v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this matter concerned the standard of review with respect to a claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Appellees Jamel Clay, James Claybrook and Rashid Lewis visited "R.B." at her dormitory room in West Chester to socialize. Eventually Appellees, R.B. and her friend H.S. discussed how Appellees would stay the night. H.S. testified that Appellees "ended up" in her room, and did not dispute that she allowed them to stay. Over the course of the stay, the three Appellees engaged in sex with H.S. H.S. contacted her Resident Assistant and claimed that Appellees had raped her. Ultimately Appellees were charged and convicted with the sexual assault of H.S. Each was sentenced to two to four years' incarceration and two years' consecutive probation. Appellees filed a joint motion for post-sentence relief, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions, and that the jury's verdicts were against the weight of the evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court used the incorrect standard of review and erroneously substituted its own conclusions for those of the jury and the trial court. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the superior court for reconsideration. View "Pennsylvania v. Clay" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Appellee John Brock waived his speedy trial claim by either failing to file a written motion to dismiss, or by failing to appear for a trial listing. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, a defendant must file a written motion to dismiss, and that by failing to appear in court on the day his or her case is listed for trial, a defendant waived his Rule 600 claim. Accordingly, the Court reversed. View "Pennsylvania v. Brock" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case was whether sheriffs and their deputies have the independent authority to establish and conduct suspicionless roadside sobriety checkpoints. In 2007, sheriffs and deputies of the Forest and Wayne County Sheriffs' Departments established temporary checkpoints in Forest County. Appellee drove a vehicle into the checkpoint, was stopped, was found to have used alcohol, and underwent a field sobriety and chemical test. Based on the results, he was arrested and charged with DUI and other offenses. "The members of [the Supreme Court] maintain great respect and express gratitude for sheriffs and their deputies in the performance of indispensable public services within their realm. We reiterate, however, that they are not police officers - nor are they invested with general police powers beyond the authority to arrest for in-presence breaches of the peace and felonies - in the absence of express legislative designation." The Court held that the sheriffs did not have the authority to independently establish and conduct the suspicionless sobriety checkpoint at which Appellee was arrested. View "Pennsylvania v. Marconi" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth appealed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which granted Appellee Connie Williams' Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition and vacated his sentence of death on the basis that appellee demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was mentally retarded. A jury convicted appellee of first degree murder and abuse of a corpse for stabbing his wife, Frances Williams, to death. The Supreme Court found that the PCRA court's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions drawn therefrom were free from error. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. Williams" on Justia Law

Appellant Glatfelter Pulpwood Company challenged the Commonwealth Court's affirmance of the Board of Finance and Revenue's determination that Appellant's gains from the sale of a tract of Delaware timberland be characterized as "business income," subject to taxation in Pennsylvania. Concluding that none of Appellant's issues raised on appeal entitled it to any relief, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court. View "Glatfelter Pulpwood Co. v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in this consolidated case to consider whether a plaintiff may recover delay damages on the full amount of a jury verdict in his favor, or whether delay damages are limited to the amount of the legally-recoverable molded verdict, as it was adjusted by the trial court to reflect insurance policy limits. This case stemmed from a 2002 accident in which the vehicle operated by Richard and Marleen Marlette, stopped in traffic, was hit when vehicle operated by Herman Jordan crossed the center line and sideswiped them. Mr. Marlette sustained serious physical injuries, as well as lost wages and impairment of his earning capacity. The Marlettes filed suit against Jordan, who was uninsured, and their own insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), for uninsured motorist ("UM") coverage. Liability was uncontested, and the case proceeded to trial on damages. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that a plaintiff may recover delay damages only on the amount of legally-recoverable damages to which he is entitled pursuant to the molded verdict. The Court remanded the case to the Superior Court for remand to the trial court for reinstatement of its original award of delay damages. View "Marlette v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. " on Justia Law