Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the common pleas court appropriately decertified a class based on its conclusion that a necessary element of the plaintiffs' proof (the presence of a confidential relationship) was not amenable to class treatment. In 1993, Sandra J. Basile commenced a civil action against H&R Block, Inc., H&R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc. and Mellon Bank. She alleged, among other things, that the Block companies maintained maintained and breached fiduciary duties in connection with their "Rapid Refund" program. Basile sought to assert claims on behalf of herself and others who were similarly situated. However, summary judgment subsequently was awarded in Block's favor on the ground that it had no fiduciary relationship with the plaintiffs. The common pleas court's conclusion, in this respect, was based on the premises that Block was not the plaintiffs' agent and that no confidential relationship otherwise existed between the parties. In the ensuing appellate litigation, the court's decision on the agency score ultimately was conclusively sustained. In 2001, the Superior Court overturned the common pleas court's summary-judgment award, finding that Ms. Basile had proffered sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of a confidential relationship. In 2003, upon consideration of the appellate rulings, the common pleas court determined that class treatment was no longer appropriate. The common pleas court found that the need for individualized inquiries on the dispositive question of trust precluded a finding that common issues predominated. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that that the common pleas court did not err in decertifying the class based on its conclusion that the presence of a confidential relationship was not amenable to class treatment. The order of the Superior Court was reversed, the common pleas court's decertification order was reinstated, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Basil. v. H & R Block, et al." on Justia Law

In this appeal by allowance, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Superior Court improperly reversed a revocation of probation, when the revocation was premised upon the conclusion that a probationer violated restrictions contained within a document entitled "Standard Special Conditions for Sex Offenders," which was authored by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (the Board), rather than a judge of the court of common pleas. Upon review, the Court held that the Superior Court erred in reversing the revocation of probation. The Superior Court's order was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Elliott" on Justia Law

This appeal by the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial which was aggrieved by the Superior Court's grant of a new trial, centered on principles of self-defense for purposes of assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the murder victim's nine-year-old conviction for robbery. The Commonwealth contended, among other points, that the Superior Court's assessment of the evidentiary ruling misapprehended the law governing self-defense. Upon review of the trial court record and the briefs submitted on appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth and reversed the Superior Court, reinstating the judgment of sentence for first-degree murder, aggravated assault and related offenses in the underlying case. View "Pennsylvania v. Mouzon" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court was presented with two questions: (1) whether a defendant's convictions for first-degree murder and other crimes which rest solely on subsequently recanted out-of-court statements given to police violates the due process guarantees of either the United States or Pennsylvania Constitutions; and (2) whether the confessions of a former co-defendant should have been admitted as evidence as statements against interest under Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3). After careful consideration, the Court held that the recanting witnesses' out-of-court statements to the police were sufficient to sustain Appellant's convictions against a due process challenge. However, because the Court also found that the trial court erred by not allowing other portions of the co-defendant's confessions to be entered into evidence as statements against interest, the Court was "constrained" to vacate Appellant's convictions and remand the case for a new trial. View "Pennsylvania v. Brown" on Justia Law

This direct appeal concerned the Commonwealth Court's jurisdiction over a suit brought by public school employees for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Office of Open Records, seeking to protect the employees' home addresses from disclosure under the Right to Know Law. Due to concerns surrounding the potential disclosure of school employees' names and home addresses under the recently enacted Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) sought guidance from the Office of Open Records (OOR) in the form of an advisory opinion. The OOR, however, dismissed the request as moot, as it had already issued final determinations directing the release of public records containing school employees' home addresses. Subsequently, numerous RTKL requests were filed with school districts across Pennsylvania, seeking disclosure of the names and home addresses of school employees. Upon discovering that many school districts had not challenged, or would not challenge, the release of such information, PSEA filed a petition for review against the OOR in the Commonwealth Court, seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the disclosure of school employees' names and home addresses and a declaration that such information is exempt from disclosure under the RTKL. PSEA appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Commonwealth Court erred by refusing to exercise its original jurisdiction over their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. "Plainly, the RTKL, as presently implemented by the OOR, does not provide public school employees with a reliable administrative or judicial method by which to seek redress for action that they believe violates the statutory scheme and/or their constitutional rights. In these unique circumstances, [the Supreme Court had] no difficulty in concluding that it is just and proper for the OOR to be haled into court to address core and colorable issues connected with such treatment at the behest of affected persons and their associations." The Commonwealth Court's decision was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Penna. State Education Assn v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the propriety of resolutions adopted by two school boards that reduce the compensation rates for elected tax collectors in an effort to adopt alternative collection methods. "[The Supreme Court] recognize[d] the difficulties faced by the School Boards in periods of financial uncertainty, but it is beyond the boards' power to transform the local tax collection system by reducing compensation levels to such a degree that the elected Tax Collectors are unable to fulfill their responsibilities; such systematic change must come from the Legislature." The Court reversed the ruling of the Commonwealth Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Telly v. Pennridge School Dist." on Justia Law

Appellant Bortela Philistin appealed an order that denied him relief from his criminal convictions and death sentence pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act. A jury convicted Appellant of first degree murder and related offenses. In the penalty phase, the jury found the existence of two aggravating circumstances: the victim was a police officer killed in the performance of his duties, and the Appellant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another. The jury found no mitigating circumstances; thus, it returned a death sentence. Appellant raised thirteen claims on appeal pertaining to errors at trial, the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court found no merit to Appellant's claims, and affirmed his conviction and death sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Philistin" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether it is against public policy to release reckless behavior in a pre-injury exculpatory clause. Appellant Camelback Ski Corporation, Inc. (“Camelback”) operates a ski resort in Tannersville, Pennsylvania that offers various winter activities, including skiing and snow tubing. Before permitting its patrons to enjoy snow tubing, Camelback requires each customer to sign a pre-printed release form. In 2003, Appellee Barbara Lichtman Tayar and her family visited Camelback’s facility in the early afternoon. Appellee and her family decided to join in, and, pursuant to Camelback’s requirement, Appellee signed the Release. Appellee and her family elected to use the family tubing slopes, and completed four successful runs down the mountain, with Appellant Brian Monaghan, a Camelback employee, releasing them from the summit safely each time. On the fifth time down the mountain, Appellee exited her snow tube and was immediately struck by another snow tuber coming down the slope. Employees rushed to assist Appellee out of the receiving area. As a result of the collision, Appellee suffered multiple comminuted factures of her right leg, for which she underwent surgery and required two metal plates and 14 screws to stabilize her ankle. A majority of the appellate court determined that the release at issue was valid only with respect to Camelback (and not Monaghan), and relieved Camelback from liability for only negligent conduct. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s order in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case. The Court reversed the order of the Superior Court to the degree it concluded that Monaghan was not covered by the Release. The Court affirmed the order to the degree it reversed the grant of summary judgment on the basis that the Release did not bar claims based on reckless conduct, and remanded for further proceedings; on the latter point, the Court affirmed on the alternative basis that, to the degree it released reckless conduct, the Release was against public policy. View "Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., Inc." on Justia Law

This case was a direct appeal from a Commonwealth Court order which set aside the nomination petition of Andrew Gales as a Democratic Candidate for Pennsylvania State Representative in the 57th Legislative District. On April 4, 2012, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the Commonwealth Court, directed that the candidate’s name be printed on the April 24, 2012 primary election ballot, and indicated that an opinion would follow. The Court released its rationale for that order, and held that the Election Code does not prohibit an elector from signing a nomination petition using an obvious diminutive form of his or her first name, rather than the formal first name that appears on the elector’s voter registration card. View "In re Nomination Petition of Andrew Gales" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Act (61 Pa. C.C. 4501-4512 (RRRI Act)) applied to defendants sentenced to mandatory terms required by two drug trafficking sentencing provisions. The superior court concluded that the RRRI Act was applicable, and affirmed Appellee Frederick Hansley's sentence. The Commonwealth challenged the trial court's application of the mandatory penalties of the trafficking sentencing provisions, contending: (1) that the trial court lacked the authority to impose lesser minimum penalties than those prescribed by those statutes; and (2) the drug trafficking sentencing statutes conflict with the RRRI Act, and that the plain language of the former provisions established that the General Assembly intended the mandatory penalties to "override" any other conflicting statutes, then-existing or later-adopted. The Supreme Court affirmed, recognizing "that the effect of the RRRI Act may be to reduce the total time in prison that an offender subject to a mandatory minimum sentence must serve. But, it is eminently clear from the plain language of the legislation that the General Assembly intended that result - for a limited class of statutorily defined defendants, upon the completion of several conditions, and subject to the controlling discretion of the Parole Board. [The Court's] plain language interpretation accords with the legislative intent as [it understood] it, and gives effect to all provisions of the relevant sentencing statutes. Accordingly, the decision below is affirmed." View "Pennsylvania v. Hansley" on Justia Law