Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Following a bench trial in October 2001, Appellee Jules Jette was found guilty of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, endangering the welfare of a child and corruption of minors charges. Appellee was sentenced to ten to twenty years' imprisonment, with consecutive terms of probation for seven and five years. The post-conviction-relief court (PCRA) found no merit to Appellee's claims for relief. Appellee's counsel strategically chose not to challenge all issues addressed by the PCRA court in its opinion that dismissed the case. Appellee appeared pro se to appeal to the Superior Court. The Superior Court found that Appellee was entitled to new counsel and remanded the case back to the PCRA court. The Commonwealth appealed the Superior Court's order to the Supreme Court. After a careful review of the Superior Court's opinion, the applicable law and the briefs of the parties, the Supreme Court found that the Superior Court misread the applicable legal standard which was the basis of its opinion. As a result, the Commonwealth found itself in the "unusual position" of advocating in defense of the "honor, independence and professionalism of the criminal defense bar" in its appeal of the Superior Court's order. The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's order and remanded the case back to the PCRA for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Jette" on Justia Law

The State Ethics Commission (Commission) appealed from an order of the Commonwealth Court that reversed the Commission's findings that Appellee Kenneth Kistler had violated two provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (Act). Appellee was a member of the Carbon-Lehigh Intermediate Unit's (CLIU) board of directors from 1998 to 2002. As chairman of the building committee, Appellee was charged with pursuing the board's interests in various construction projects. Appellee also owned two building supply businesses. In late 1999, the board explored the possibility of constructing a garage in which to house its buses. The project's architect contacted Appellee as possible supplier for the project. Subsequently, Appellee resigned from his position with CLIU as a possible conflict-of-interest. At a board meeting, the solicitor for the CLIU opined that Appellee could "properly participate" in construction of the garage, but that he should abstain from any votes relating to that project. More projects were planned, and Appellee's businesses were again considered as suppliers. By this time, Appellee had withdrawn completely from participation with the CLIU's building committee. In 2004, the Commission notified Appellee that he was being investigated for possible violations of the Ethics Act. The Commission thereafter concluded that Appellee unintentionally violated the Act three times. The Commonwealth Court reversed the Commission’s decision. In its interpretation of the Ethics Act, the court found no evidence that Appellee's participation in the building committee's discussions lead to the committee's choosing his private businesses for its building projects. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Commonwealth Court correctly interpreted the Ethics Act and affirmed its decision. View "Kistler v. State Ethics Comm'n" on Justia Law