Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sean Pearce was bicycling along a road when he collided with a construction barrel and fell into the road. At least two vehicles, one driven by Appellee Gregory Wisneski, subsequently fatally struck Pearce. Appellee later admitted driving along the road when, initially thinking he hit a speed bump, he looked in his mirror and saw a body in the road. Appellee did not stop at the scene. The Commonwealth charged Appellee with failing to stop at an accident, failing to comply with a duty to give information and render aid, and failing to immediately notify the police. Appellee filed a habeas petition seeking dismissal of the charges, arguing the Commonwealth could not prove Pearce was alive when Appellee struck him. The trial court concluded that the statutes required the victim to be alive at the time of the accident, reasoning that "once a victim of an accident is dead, the accident concludes that the statutes cannot apply to vehicles that later come upon the scene." A divided Superior Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the information against Appellee. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that "a person does not turn into mere property upon their death, certainly not for purposes of a driver's obligations under the Vehicle Code. We find, therefore, the term 'resulting in injury' must include causing harm or damage to the body of a human, whether deceased or not. To find otherwise would defeat the legislative scheme, and would be offensive to our notions of the value of the person." The Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Wisneski" on Justia Law

The issue central to this case was whether Appellee George Banks was competent to be executed. Appellee used a semi-automatic rifle to murder thirteen people and seriously wounded a fourteenth in an early morning shooting spree in 1982. Five of the victims were Appellee's children, and four were Appellee's former or then-current girlfriends. In 2004, the Supreme Court ordered the trial court to determine whether Appellee had the capacity to initiate clemency proceedings or to designate someone to initiate them on his behalf. "To say that [the Court's] direction for expedition went unheeded by [the trial court judge] would be an understatement." Clemency proceedings were delayed by federal counsel seeking to burden the Commonwealth's ability to have its mental health experts examine Appellee in order to prepare a case in rebuttal against counsel's claim that Appellee had become insane. The Court concluded that "the competency question [was] important, but narrow, and it should have been resolved sooner." Following the Court's review of the competency determination rendered by the trial court, the Court concluded that Appellee was incompetent to be executed under the standards set forth in Pennsylvania case law. "It appear[ed] that [Appellee was] in a different place mentally than he was nearly thirty years ago when he committed his crimes and when he was tried." View "Pennsylvania v. Banks" on Justia Law

Indian Rocks Property Owners Association, Inc. developed rules and regulations that were recorded as protective covenants running with the land in a development in Salem Township, Wayne County. Appellees John and Regina Glatfelter purchased a lot within the Indian Rocks community. John died in 1990 leaving Regina as the sole owner of the lot. The lot sat vacant until 2003 when the Glatfelters' son David began constructing a foundation. The Association initially inspected and approved the excavation, but late that year informed the Glatfelters that the work was substandard and inadequate pursuant to the covenants. The Glatfelters were ordered to cease construction until a new plan was approved. The Glatfelters agreed to stop work until they submitted a new application for construction in conformance with the covenants, but they failed to comply with the agreement. The Association brought suit to enforce the covenants, which the trial court approved and entered into its order. Since that suit, the Commonwealth amended the Construction Code to exempt "recreational cabins" from its requirements. Adopting the Construction Code, the Association passed a resolution refusing to recognize the recreational cabin exemption. When the Glatfelters sought to use the changed Construction Code to their advantage, the Association argued that its refusal to recognize the Code's changed cabin exemption did not apply to the Glatfelters' construction project. The trial court granted the Association's contempt petition against the Glatfelters. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Glatfelters stipulated that they would comply with the Association's rules prior to the change in the Code. As such, they were bound to the terms of the stipulation when completing their construction project: "the Glatfelters cannot use the recreational cabin exemption as a trump card to bypass the rules and regulations to which they agreed. … Our holding is premised entirely on the Glatfelters' failure to obtain the Association's approval regarding the intended structure." The Court did not address the validity of the Association's resolution refusing the adopt the recreational cabin exemption. View "Indian Rocks Property Owners Assoc. v. Glatfelter" on Justia Law

In 1999, a jury convicted Appellant Steven Hutchinson of first-degree murder and other crimes for the shooting death of one of his girlfriends. Appellant unsuccessfully filed a petition for post-conviction relief raising numerous guilt and penalty phase claims. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellant appealed the denial of his guilt phase claims, raising ten issues for the Court’s review. Taking each in turn, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence in the trial court and PCRA court records to support his conviction. Accordingly, the Court affirmed his conviction. View "Pennsylvania v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

In 2008, a Pennsylvania Game Commission Officer found Appellant Mark Clegg in possession of two rifles during a hunting incident. Appellant had a prior conviction of attempted burglary. In addition to various summary violations under the Game and Wildlife Code, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with violation of the Uniform Firearms Act. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether attempted burglary is a "qualifying offense" that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm under the Act. Upon review of the plain meaning of the Act, the Supreme Court found that attempted burglary is not one of the enumerated offenses under the Act, and as such, was not a "qualifying" offense for which Appellant could be charged in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss Appellant's charge under the Act. View "Pennsylvania v. Clegg" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court in Defendant Omar Johnson's case properly calculated the total weight of heroin for the purpose of imposing a mandatory minimum sentence. Upon review of the trial court's record, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in finding that a single purchase of one bundle of packets of heroin from a third person who retrieved the bundle from a parked car, coupled with Defendant's immediate resale of that bundle to an undercover offer, formed an adequate basis for its conclusion that Defendant was in constructive possession of a second bundle stored in the car which was discovered following a police search. Because the amount of heroin seized from the car was erroneously included by the trial court in the calculation of the total amount of heroin Defendant was found to have possessed with the intent to deliver, the Supreme Court concluded Defendant received an improperly-calculated sentence. The Court reversed the trial court's calculation and remanded the case for resentencing. View "Pennsylvania v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Appellee United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives, Inc. (USOBA) and Appellant Department of Banking challenged different aspects of the Commonwealth Court's decision that the Pennsylvania Debt Management Services Act (Act 117) was unconstitutional in part. At the request of the Supreme Court, the parties addressed whether the lower court's disposition was a final order appealable pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The General Assembly adopted Act 117 in October 2008 to regulate, in relevant part, providers of debt settlement services (“DSS”). A DSS provider negotiates with creditors on behalf of a consumer “for the purpose of the creditor forgiving part or all of the principal of the debt incurred or credit extended to that consumer.” Pursuant to Section 3(b) of Act 117, DSS providers are prohibited from operating in Pennsylvania without a license from the Banking Department, and are required to comply with the Department’s regulations. Other sections of Act 117 list licensing fees, describe the initial licensing, license renewal, revocation, and reinstatement processes, and create penalties for violations of the statute. USOBA claimed that Act 117 violates the non-delegation, equal protection, and due process provisions of the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions, and requested a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and compensation for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Department denied the allegations, and filed an Application for Summary Relief, claiming that the contentions in the complaint were insufficient as a matter of law to state a claim. Following a hearing, the Commonwealth Court denied the Department’s application in an unpublished opinion. Upon review of the Act, the applicable legal authority and the trial record, the Supreme Court concluded that the Commonwealth Court's order was not appealable and quashed the parties' appeals. View "United States Org. for Bankruptcy Alt. v. Dept. of Banking" on Justia Law

Appellant Anne Marie Morack worked for Appellee Gentex Corporation for over thirty years. In 2005, she left when swelling and pain in her hands were too overwhelming for her to continue work. She sought medical help, and notified her employer of the pain. In early 2005, Appellant applied for short-term disability, noting on her application for benefits that she did not believe her injury was work-related. After consultation with a specialist, Appellee learned that her injury was work-related. Gentex ultimately appealed the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's decision granting Appellant's claim to the Commonwealth Court, contending that Appellant did not timely notify her supervisor of the injury nor aptly describe the injury to comply with the state workers' compensation act. The Commonwealth Court reversed, finding Appellant did not aptly describe her injury nor give Gentex adequate notice. The Supreme Court granted allocatur to determine what constitutes sufficient notice under the Act, and to "speak to" an employer's duty to conduct reasonable investigations into the circumstances surrounding a work-related injury. Under the Act, notice is a prerequisite to receive workers' compensation benefits, and the claimant bears the burden of demonstrating that proper notice was given. Upon review of the applicable case law in this instance, the Court found that, "consistent with the humanitarian purposes of the Act, [the Court] made it clear that even imperfect notice can satisfy" its strictures. The Court employed a "totality of the circumstances" approach to determining whether Appellant in this case both satisfied the notice and description of the injury in making her claim for benefits. In reversing the Commonwealth Court, the Supreme Court found that Appellant's collective communications with Gentex satisfied the notification requirements of the Act. View "Gentex Corp v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

The issue in this case centers around whether an inoperable handgun is considered a "firearm" for sentencing purposes. In 2006, Appellant Sue Zortman and her boyfriend were the subject of a grand jury investigation regarding suspected drug activity. Appellant allowed state narcotics agents to search her home and purse. The agents found various amounts of marijuana, drug paraphernalia, a bank deposit bag and a loaded .357 Magnum handgun. Appellant would eventually be sentenced to five years' imprisonment with three years' probation. Appellant argued on appeal that the mandatory minimum sentence should not have been imposed upon her since at the time of her arrest, the handgun was "inoperable" due to the absence of a firing pin. The State argued that the applicable sentencing statute does not require that the gun be functional for the mandatory minimum sentence to be applicable. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that it did not matter whether the gun was operational, it was still a gun. The Court affirmed Appellant's sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Zortman " on Justia Law

Claimant Kevin Ressler suffered a work-related injury in 1995. He received Workers' Compensation benefits. In 2004, Claimant submitted to an independent medical evaluation (IME). The sequence of events since the IME make up the heart of this appeal. In June 2004, Claimant had surgery related with his work-related injury. In July 2004, his employer petitioned to terminate benefits as of the date of the IME. The employer also requested a supersedeas. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied the superseadas in August 2004. In October of that year, the insurer received the invoice for the June surgery and paid the amount by the end of January, 2005. In June 2005, the WCJ granted the employer's petition to terminate benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Bard (WCAB) affirmed that decision. The insurer then requested reimbursement for the 2004 surgery from the Supersedeas Fund. The Bureau of Workers' Compensation challenged the request because Claimant's surgery predated the supersedeas request. The WCJ found that no obligation to pay arose until the bill was submitted to the insurer in October 2004. Because the obligation to pay arose after the denial of supersedeas, reimbursement was appropriate. The WCAB affirmed. The issue of whether the Supersedeas Fund may deny reimbursement of treatment rendered before the insurer requested supersedeas came before the Supreme Court. Upon review of the trial record and the Workers' Compensation Act, the Court concluded that the lower courts appropriately ordered reimbursement to the insurer for undue payments made after the supersedeas request and in direct response to the earlier denial. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Bur. of Workers' Comp., Aplt v. WCAB" on Justia Law