Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A man brought a civil lawsuit against the Philadelphia District Attorney and several assistant district attorneys, alleging they violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act by using and disclosing surreptitiously recorded conversations between him and his ex-wife during a criminal prosecution. The recordings, made by his ex-wife without his knowledge during their marriage, were provided to the police and used by prosecutors in their attempt to bring criminal charges against him. The criminal court ultimately found the recordings were obtained in violation of the Wiretap Act and barred their use as evidence, leading to the dismissal or withdrawal of all charges.In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, the prosecutors raised the defense of high public official immunity in response to the civil suit for damages under the Wiretap Act. The trial court agreed, holding that the General Assembly had only waived sovereign immunity in the Wiretap Act, not high public official immunity, and dismissed the claims with prejudice. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, reasoning that high public official immunity is a broad, absolute bar to civil suits for damages arising from actions taken within the scope of official duties, and that the Wiretap Act did not expressly waive this immunity for district attorneys or their assistants.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether law enforcement officers, specifically district attorneys and assistant district attorneys, are immune from civil suits for damages under Section 5725 of the Wiretap Act. The court held that, while the Act expressly waives sovereign immunity, it does not specifically and explicitly waive high public official immunity. Therefore, district attorneys and assistant district attorneys retain high public official immunity from civil suits for damages under the Wiretap Act when acting within the scope of their official duties. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court. View "Winig v. Office of DA of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Christopher Toland was sentenced in 1993 to a lengthy prison term for rape, kidnapping, and related offenses, making him eligible for parole in 2004. Between 2004 and 2020, the Pennsylvania Parole Board denied him parole fourteen times, often contrary to recommendations from the Department of Corrections. Toland filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, seeking mandamus relief and alleging constitutional violations in the Board’s parole denials from 2017, 2018, and 2019. He claimed the Board relied on false information, acted arbitrarily, and applied parole standards retroactively in violation of ex post facto prohibitions.The Commonwealth Court overruled the Parole Board’s preliminary objections to Toland’s claims, allowing discovery to proceed. When Toland requested documents related to his parole eligibility, the Parole Board objected, citing its own regulation (37 Pa. Code § 61.2) that designates its records as “private, confidential and privileged.” The Commonwealth Court rejected the Board’s objections, finding that Toland, as the beneficiary of the privilege, could waive it. The Board then filed an interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order, but on a different basis. The Supreme Court held that the Parole Board does not have the authority to create an evidentiary privilege through its own regulation. Therefore, Section 61.2 does not establish a privilege that can be invoked to prevent disclosure of documents in discovery. The Court clarified that only privileges created by the legislature, the constitution, or the common law are recognized in Pennsylvania courts, and no such privilege exists under Section 61.2. The Supreme Court’s disposition was to affirm the lower court’s order. View "Toland v. PBPP" on Justia Law

Several companies that supply electricity generation services in Pennsylvania challenged a billing practice used by a regional electric distribution company (EDC), FirstEnergy. FirstEnergy, which is responsible for delivering electricity to customers, offered its own customers the option to pay for non-commodity goods and services—such as smart thermostats and surge protection—through their regular utility bills, a practice known as “on-bill billing.” However, FirstEnergy did not allow competing electric generation suppliers (EGSs) to use this billing method for their own non-commodity goods and services. The EGSs argued that this practice was unlawfully discriminatory under Section 1502 of the Public Utility Code and Section 2804(6) of the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, which prohibit unreasonable preferences or advantages in utility service.An administrative law judge initially found in favor of the EGSs, concluding that FirstEnergy’s practice gave it a significant competitive advantage and violated the anti-discrimination provisions. However, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) reversed this decision, reasoning that discrimination only occurs if the EDC provides the billing service to third parties but not to EGSs, which was not the case here. The PUC also determined that the relevant statutes did not require EDCs to offer on-bill billing for non-commodity goods and services to EGSs.The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the PUC’s decision, holding that the statutory provisions at issue did not obligate EDCs to provide on-bill billing for non-commodity goods and services to EGSs. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and agreed with the lower courts. The Court held that EDCs have no statutory duty to provide on-bill billing for non-commodity goods and services to EGSs, and that such billing does not constitute “service,” “electric services,” or “transmission and distribution service” under the relevant statutes. The Court affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court. View "Interstate Gas Supply, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission" on Justia Law

Entities approved to grow, process, or test medical marijuana in Pennsylvania challenged a regulation issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Health. The Department required that growers and processors use one independent laboratory to test marijuana at harvest and a different independent laboratory to test the product after processing, a rule known as the “two-lab requirement.” The challengers argued that this regulation exceeded the Department’s authority under the Medical Marijuana Act, which states that growers and processors must contract with “one or more independent laboratories” for testing.The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, sitting en banc, reviewed the challenge. It focused on the statutory language in Section 704 of the Act, interpreting the phrase “one or more independent laboratories” to mean that growers and processors could choose to use only one laboratory if they wished. The court concluded that the Department’s two-lab requirement conflicted with the Act and declared the regulation unenforceable. A dissenting opinion argued that the Department had broad regulatory authority under the Act, including the power to require multiple laboratories to ensure patient safety.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case on direct appeal. It held that the Medical Marijuana Act grants the Department of Health discretion to determine the number of laboratories required for testing, in order to fulfill the Act’s explicit goals, including patient safety and high-quality research. The Court found that the Commonwealth Court erred by interpreting Section 704 in isolation and failing to consider the broader context and policy objectives of the Act. The Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the remaining issues, including whether the two-lab requirement is reasonable. View "Green Analytics North, LLC v. Department of Health" on Justia Law

A high school in a Pennsylvania school district displayed approximately 70 books in its library, some of which addressed LGBTQ+ issues in anticipation of Pride Month. A third-party contractor photographed the display and posted it on Facebook. Two school board members, David Valesky and Luigi DeFrancesco, shared the post on their personal Facebook accounts, with Valesky adding commentary critical of the display. This sparked public debate, including a newspaper article and discussions at subsequent school board meetings. Thomas Cagle, a local resident, submitted a request under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) seeking, among other things, all Facebook posts and comments by the two board members related to homosexuality and the school district.The school district partially denied the request, providing some emails but refusing to disclose any social media content, arguing that the posts were on personal accounts and not within the district’s possession. Cagle appealed to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR), which ordered disclosure, reasoning that the content, not the ownership of the account, determined whether the posts were public records. The district sought judicial review in the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County, which agreed with the OOR and ordered disclosure, finding that the posts documented district business and were thus subject to the RTKL.On appeal, the Commonwealth Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to consider additional factors to determine whether the posts were “of the agency” under the RTKL. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and held that the RTKL’s two-part test—whether the information documents a transaction or activity of an agency and was created, received, or retained in connection with agency business—applies to all forms of communication, including social media. The Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order to remand for further fact-finding, clarifying that no special test applies to social media, but relevant facts must be considered in each case. View "Penncrest SD v. Cagle" on Justia Law

A group of appellants, including Firearms Owners Against Crime and two firearms dealers, filed a case against the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Commissioner, alleging that PSP was not complying with the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act. The appellants claimed that PSP was intentionally understaffing its Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) Operations Section, leading to significant delays in background checks for firearm purchases, sometimes exceeding seven hours. They argued that these delays violated the statutory requirement for "instantaneous" or "immediate" background checks and caused financial harm to firearms dealers due to canceled transactions.The Commonwealth Court initially issued a preliminary injunction, finding that PSP had a statutory duty to employ sufficient personnel to ensure compliance with the Act and that the delays were causing financial harm to the dealers. However, the court later sustained PSP's preliminary objections, ruling that the statute did not specify a mandatory timeframe for background checks and that the operational decisions regarding staffing were discretionary. The court also dismissed the appellants' request for a refund of the $2.00 background check fee, as the statute did not provide for such refunds.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and held that while the statute did not require "instantaneous" responses, it did mandate that PSP provide results as quickly as possible with available resources. The court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's denial of injunctive and mandamus relief, as these would compel affirmative action barred by sovereign immunity. However, the court reversed the denial of declaratory relief, allowing the appellants to seek a judicial declaration of PSP's duties under the Act. The court also vacated the order denying leave to amend the petition, allowing the appellants to include new allegations regarding PSP's response to the preliminary injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Firearms Owners v. Comm'r of PSP" on Justia Law

Gianni and Jennifer Pignetti owned two noncontiguous parcels of land in Philadelphia, used for storing vehicles and equipment for Mr. Pignetti's electrical business. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) condemned part of one parcel and all of the other for an Interstate 95 improvement project. The Pignettis sought just compensation, arguing the parcels should be valued together as one under the Eminent Domain Code, which allows for such valuation if noncontiguous tracts in substantially identical ownership are used together for a unified purpose.The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County agreed with the Pignettis, finding that the parcels were used together for a unified purpose and had substantially identical ownership. PennDOT appealed, and the Commonwealth Court reversed, ruling that the Pignettis did not prove the parcels were used together for a unified purpose. The Commonwealth Court applied a stricter standard from the case Morris v. Commonwealth, requiring that the parcels be so inseparably connected that the loss of one would necessarily and permanently injure the other.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of Section 705 of the Eminent Domain Code does not require the stricter standard from Morris. Instead, it requires only that the parcels be used together for a unified purpose. The Court found that the Pignettis' use of the parcels for storing business equipment and vehicles met this requirement. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address whether the parcels had substantially identical ownership, an issue not resolved by the Commonwealth Court. View "Pignetti v. PennDOT" on Justia Law

Several applicants sought licenses to operate video gaming terminals under Pennsylvania's Video Gaming Act, which requires applicants to demonstrate "good character, honesty, and integrity." The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board denied the applications of Todd Teitelbaum, Michael Brozzetti, and Frank Brozzetti, citing their involvement in the skill games industry, which the Board viewed as unregulated and problematic. The Board's decision was based on general criticisms of the skill games industry, including the lack of regulatory safeguards and the economic impact on casinos and the lottery.The Commonwealth Court reviewed the Board's decision and reversed it, finding that the Board's rationale was insufficient. The court noted that the Board's decision relied solely on generalizations about the skill games industry and did not provide specific evidence regarding the applicants' personal character, honesty, or integrity. The court highlighted the absence of any criminal convictions, tax evasion, connections to organized crime, or other nefarious conduct by the applicants. The Commonwealth Court concluded that the Board's decision was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and agreed with the Commonwealth Court that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court noted that the Board failed to provide specific evidence regarding the applicants' personal qualities and relied solely on general criticisms of the skill games industry. However, the Supreme Court vacated the Commonwealth Court's order to issue the licenses, remanding the case to the Board for further consideration of the applications without directing any particular outcome. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Board's discretion is not absolute and must be based on reason and specific evidence related to the applicants. View "Brozzetti v. PGCB" on Justia Law

Dr. Omar Almusa, a licensed medical physician and surgeon in Pennsylvania, unlawfully distributed hydrocodone between 2014 and 2018. He pleaded guilty to unlawful dispensing and distributing a controlled substance, conspiracy to distribute, and health care fraud. In 2019, he was sentenced to 24 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Consequently, the State Board of Medicine automatically suspended his medical license for at least ten years, effective August 15, 2019.Almusa did not appeal the suspension. In 2020, the General Assembly enacted Act 53, redefining how licensing boards consider criminal offenses, specifying that only drug trafficking offenses (involving at least 100 grams of a controlled substance) warrant automatic suspension. Almusa's offense did not meet this threshold. In 2021, Almusa petitioned for reinstatement of his license, arguing that Act 53 should apply to his case, allowing him to seek reinstatement without waiting ten years.The Board denied his petition, stating that Act 53 did not apply retroactively to suspensions imposed before its enactment. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting the suspension and reinstatement as a single action requiring a ten-year suspension period.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision. It held that automatic suspension and reinstatement are separate actions under the Medical Practice Act. The Court found that Act 53, effective December 28, 2020, applies to reinstatement proceedings initiated after this date. Since Almusa's offense did not qualify as drug trafficking under Act 53, the ten-year waiting period did not apply to his reinstatement petition. The Court concluded that Almusa was entitled to have his reinstatement petition considered under the new law. View "Almusa v. State Board of Medicine" on Justia Law

Cedric Galette initiated a negligence action against Julie McCrey and New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit) in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Galette alleged that he was injured when a vehicle operated by McCrey, in which he was a passenger, was struck by an NJ Transit vehicle. NJ Transit, an instrumentality of the State of New Jersey, filed a motion to dismiss the suit, invoking interstate sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the motion.NJ Transit appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision. The Superior Court held that NJ Transit is not an instrumentality or arm of the State of New Jersey and, therefore, is not entitled to sovereign immunity protections. The court applied a six-factor test from Goldman v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority to determine NJ Transit's status and concluded that the factors did not support NJ Transit's claim to sovereign immunity.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case to determine whether the United States Supreme Court's decision in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (Hyatt III) compels a conclusion that interstate sovereign immunity bars Galette’s suit against NJ Transit. The court held that NJ Transit is indeed an arm of the State of New Jersey, emphasizing the statutory classification of NJ Transit as an instrumentality of the state, the degree of control the state exercises over it, and its core function of providing public transportation, which is a governmental function. Consequently, the court reversed the Superior Court's judgment, resulting in the dismissal of Galette’s suit against NJ Transit. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings regarding Galette’s claims against McCrey. View "Galette v. New Jersey Transit" on Justia Law