Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted review of this case to address the applicability of Section 9543(b) of the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) to delays in filing amended post-conviction petitions, and the related issue of what obligation (if any) a petitioner had to move the litigation of his petition forward. In 1988, Petitioner filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief. A public defender was appointed to serve as his counsel upon remand to the PCRA court, but no further docket entries appeared in Petitioner's case until 2003 when Petitioner acting pro se filed a document seeking "extension of post-conviction relief petition." The extension was treated as an untimely and successive PCRA petition. On remand, the case was again assigned counsel, and that counsel filed an amended PCRA petition, raising numerous claims regarding Petitioner's trial counsel's ineffective assistance. The PCRA court issued an opinion dismissing the matter with prejudice. The court cited that too much time as passed to be able to mount a defense as fifteen witnesses were no longer available: "the absence of witnesses as well as the likelihood that memories would be poor twenty-four years after trial… would severely prejudice the Commonwealth's ability to retry" Petitioner. Accordingly, the PCRA court dismissed the matter; the Superior Court affirmed. Upon review the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the Legislature balanced policy concerns implicated by protracted litigation of PCRA claims and determined that in certain instances of substantial delay, the prejudice suffered by the Commonwealth as a result of that delay, as demonstrated at an evidentiary hearing, justifies dismissal of an original or amended petition. View "Pennsylvania v. Renchenski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in this case to determine whether the immunity provisions of Section 23 of the Workers' Compensation Act (Act 44) applied to "subrogation and/or reimbursement claims sought against an employee who has entered into a third[-]party settlement with a Commonwealth [p]arty such as Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ('SEPTA')." Upon review of this matter, the Supreme Court held that the portion of Act 44 at issue in this case barred any claim made by the employer for the recoupment of workers' compensation benefits it paid. View "Fraizer v. W.C.A.B." on Justia Law

In 1996, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted mandamus relief and ordered the General Assembly to enact laws to provide funding for the support of judicial system. In 1999, the General Assembly enacted legislation which effectuated the first phase of an appointed master's recommendations for implementation of the Court's directive. In late 2008, the Petitioners in this case filed a "Motion to Enforce Grant of Petition for Mandamus and Order" requesting that the Court enforce the 1996 order. Upon review of the years' of litigation since 1996 in this matter, the Supreme Court elected not to grant further mandamus relief, "and neither [was the Court] inclined to go backward and overrule [its] prior decisions rendered in light of the realities of time." The Court denied the motion to enforce and relinquished jurisdiction. View "PA State Association of County Commissioners v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

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

The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether a labor arbitration award, issued pursuant to the Public Employe Relations Act ("PERA"), and reinstating an employee discharged for acts constituting sexual harassment, violated well-defined and dominant public policy. Concluding that it did, the Court affirmed an order of the Commonwealth Court, and vacated the award. View "Phila. Housing Authority v. AFSCME" 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

Appellants sought a new trial in this medical battery/lack-of-consent case on the ground that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the technical elements of battery, particularly the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact. They further maintained that the charge was erroneous because it instructed the jury that Appellants-Plaintiffs were required to prove that the surgeon who performed the allegedly unauthorized operation did so with the intent to harm. Viewing the jury charge in its entirety, the Supreme Court concluded that it clearly and accurately set forth the law. Contrary to Appellants' contentions, the jury charge did not require proof that the surgeon performed the operation with the intent to harm. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order of the Superior Court, which affirmed the trial court's entry of judgment on the verdict in favor of Appellees. View "Cooper v. Lankenau Hospital, et al" on Justia Law