Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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 issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a doctor who treats prison inmates has a common law duty to warn corrections officers that a particular inmate has a communicable disease. Appellee Michelle Seebold filed suit against Appellant Prison Health Services, Inc. ("PHS"), alleging a single cause of action expressly grounded in negligence. Appellee worked as a corrections officer at the prison and was assigned to strip search its female inmates before and after they received visitors. The complaint asserted that approximately twelve inmates were infected with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). As a result of Appellee's contact with the inmates, she averred, she became infected. Appellee contended that PHS's staff knew or should have known of the infections and owed a duty of reasonable care to "the staff and inmates at SCI Muncy to warn them of and protect them from acquiring an MRSA infection from those inmates known to be carrying the bacteria in a communicable state." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Appellee had not asserted a cause of action under Commonwealth case law, and "[i]n the absence of policy arguments or a request for an opportunity to develop a record, the [trial] court did not err in applying the default approach of declining to impose upon professional undertakings new affirmative common-law duties running to third-parties to the professional relationship." The Court reversed the superior court and reinstated the trial court's order. View "Seebold v. Prison Health Services" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether the "voluntary layoff option" proviso ("VLO Proviso") contained in Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law ("UC Law"), permits employees to receive unemployment compensation benefits when they accept an early retirement plan offered pursuant to an employer-initiated workforce reduction. Upon application of our rules of statutory construction, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court and concluded that the UC Law does not preclude application of the VLO Proviso to early retirement plans offered pursuant to employer-initiated workforce reductions. View "Diehl v. Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Review" 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

The Commonwealth appealed a superior curt order that affirmed a trial court's grant of post-conviction relief (pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA)). The lower courts held that appellee's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge jury instructions at his 1993 trial for first-degree murder and related charges. The superior court concluded the jury charge at issue violated "Commonwealth v. Huffman," (638 A.2d 961 (Pa. 1994)). On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that in deeming counsel ineffective, the lower courts failed to account for the Supreme Court's more recent case law that effectively overruled "Huffman." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the panel failed to appreciate basic distinctions between this case and the Huffman case, "distinctions made clearer by subsequent decisional law the panel failed to consider." Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the Superior Court and remanded the case to the PCRA court for the entry of an order denying appellee PCRA relief. View "Pennsylvania v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Appellant James Baldwin appealed a superior court order that affirmed his sentence for first degree murder and abuse of a corpse. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request to testify on his own behalf after the evidentiary phase of the trial was closed, and after he waived such right the previous day, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Appellee Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is considered an "arm" of the state which under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution would confer upon it sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought by injured employees. After review of the applicable statutory authority, the Supreme Court concluded that SEPTA could not be deemed an "arm" of the state, and thus is not entitled to sovereign immunity from suits under the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, the Court reversed an order of the Commonwealth Court and remanded this case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Goldman v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a pathologist was competent to testify as an expert witness regarding the standard of care in a medical malpractice action asserted against a board-certified general surgeon. Decedent Mildred Anderson sought treatment from surgeon Gary McAfoos, M.D. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Anderson took a turn for the worse and died from sepsis in response to surgery ultimately conducted by Dr. McAfoos and his practice partners. Mrs. Anderson's estate sued, and at trial proferred the testimony of a pathologist, who asserted that Dr. McAfoos and his agents' acts fell below ordinary standards of care by allowing Mrs. Anderson's discharge from the hospital despite certain indicators that she was suffering from a serious infection (that ultimately lead to her death). The doctor objected to Mrs. Anderson's use of the pathologist as an expert, arguing he was incompetent to assess the standard of care on a doctor who sees patients, "[h]e can't possibly second guess care and treatment on a patient when he doesn't see patients." The trial court sustained the objection to the expert's testimony; subsequently the doctor moved for nonsuit which was granted. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Mrs. Anderson did not properly preserve her claim that the expert's credentials satisfied the requirements of the state competency statute, and accordingly, could not advance her contention that he should have been allowed to render standard-of-care testimony against a board-certified surgeon. View "Anderson v. McAfoos, et al" on Justia Law