Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on the proper application of the statute of limitations to a tort action filed by Renee’ Rice against the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown and its bishops (collectively, the “Diocese”) for their alleged role in covering up and facilitating a series of alleged sexual assaults committed by the Reverend Charles Bodziak. Rice alleged that Bodziak sexually abused her from approximately 1974 through 1981. She did not file suit against Bodziak or the Diocese until June 2016, thirty-five years after the alleged abuse stopped. The Supreme Court concluded that a straightforward application of Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations required that Rice’s complaint be dismissed as untimely. View "Rice v. Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, the Commonwealth Court reversed determinations of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”), holding that Section 1301.1(a) required public utilities to revise their DSIC calculations to include income tax deductions and credits to reduce rates charged to consumers. Several public utilities sought to add or adjust DSICs to recover expenses related to repairing, improving, or replacing their distribution system infrastructure, and the Office of Consumer Advocate (“OCA”), through Acting Consumer Advocate Tanya McCloskey, raised challenges to these DSIC computations seeking to add calculations to account for income tax deductions and credits and thereby reduce the rates charged to consumers. The parties disputed whether and, if so, how the addition of Section 1301.1(a) into Subchapter A of Chapter 13 of the Code, requiring inclusion of “income tax deductions and credits” in rate calculations, should apply to the DSIC rate adjustment mechanism of Subchapter B of Chapter 13, 66 Pa.C.S. sections 1350- 1360. Broadly, the PUC and the public utilities argued: (1) ambiguity existed as to whether the General Assembly intended Section 1301.1 to apply to the DSIC mechanism; and, assuming for argument that it did apply; (2) that the Commonwealth Court’s application of Section 1301.1(a) improperly created conflicts with the statutory provisions governing the DSIC calculation; and/or (3) that certain existing DSIC statutory provisions could be read to satisfy the requirements of Section 1301.1(a). Though the Pennsylvania Supreme Court differed in its reasoning, it affirmed the outcome of the Commonwealth Court's judgment. View "McCloskey v. PUC" on Justia Law

U.S. Venture, Inc. (“Venture”) appealed a Commonwealth Court decision affirming the determination of the Pennsylvania Board of Claims (“Board”) that its dispute with the Commonwealth involving two grant agreements was not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board and that its claim was barred by sovereign immunity. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that any ambiguity within the relevant statutory provisions had to be resolved in favor of preserving sovereign immunity. Alternatively, the Court found these written grant agreements were in fact “grants,” which were not subject to the limited waiver of sovereign immunity. View "U.S. Venture Inc. v. Dep of Comm & Econo Dev" on Justia Law

In May 2017, a PennLive reporter, PennLive, and the Patriot-News (collectively, “Appellees”) requested disclosure of all of the medical marijuana business permit applications in Pennsylvania pursuant to the Right- to-Know Law (“RTKL”). The Medical Marijuana Act, as well as the Department of Health’s temporary regulations, explicitly provided that permit applications were public records subject to disclosure under the RTKL. The applications for the issuance of permits required extensive information pertaining to various facets of the applicant’s intended business, including, inter alia, financial and operational capabilities; community impact plans; site and facility plans; the verification of an applicant’s principals, operators, financial backers, and employees; a description of the business activities in which the applicant intended to engage; and a statement that the applicant was able to maintain effective security and prevent diversion or other illegal conduct related to their medical marijuana business. The Department denied Appellees’ RTKL request, in part, referring Appellees to redacted copies of applications posted on its website. Access to the certain other applications, which had not yet been posted, were denied. The Department did not independently review the applicants’ redactions, but accepted all applicants’ redactions that applicants deemed confidential or proprietary, or otherwise subject to redaction under the RTKL. This resulted in a disparity in redactions across the various applications. Appellees appealed to the Office of Open Records, claiming the Department lacked a legal basis for its redactions. The Department and Applicants filed petitions for review with the Commonwealth Court, asserting various claims of error with respect to the OOR’s ultimate application of the exemptions under the RTKL to their respective applications. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court in two aspects: (1) rejecting the Department’s request to be relieved of its obligations to review all requests and determine what parts of a record are subject to disclosure and what parts are subject to redaction; and (2) rejecting Applicant Harvest’s contention that, its entire application should be deemed to be exempt from disclosure. The Court vacated parts of the Commonwealth Court's decision regarding Applicant Terrapin's claim its application was exempt from disclosure. The matter was remanded the Commonwealth Court for reconsideration of Terrapin's arguments for exemption. View "PennLive v. Dept of Health, Aplt." on Justia Law

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted discretionary review of a Superior Court’s decision to invalidate the involuntary termination of a father’s parental rights. The child’s mother voluntarily relinquished her own rights, but continued to reside with the pre-adoptive maternal grandparents and maintain her parental role. The panel viewed the matter to involve unlawful custody gamesmanship in conflict with the Supreme Court's decision in In re Adoption of M.R.D., 145 A.3d 1117 (Pa. 2016). Although the Supreme Court found no direct conflict between the proposed adoption and M.R.D., and disapproved of the Superior Court’s holding to the contrary, the Supreme Court affirmed the panel’s disposition on the alternative grounds. View "Adoption of C.M." on Justia Law

In 2007, Ryan Mortimer was seriously and permanently injured when an intoxicated driver collided with her car. The driver recently had been served by employees of the Famous Mexican Restaurant (“the Restaurant”) in Coatesville, Pennsylvania. The owners of the Restaurant had a contractual management agreement with the owner of the Restaurant’s liquor license (“the License”), Appellee 340 Associates, LLC. The Restaurant was located in a large, mixed-use building owned by Appellee McCool Properties, LLC. At the time of the injury, Appellees Michael Andrew McCool (“Andy”) and Raymond Christian McCool (“Chris”) were the sole owners of 340 Associates. With their father, Raymond McCool (“Raymond”), they also owned McCool Properties. In an underlying “dram shop action,” Mortimer obtained a combined judgment of $6.8 million against 340 Associates and numerous other defendants. Under the Liquor Code, 340 Associates as licensee was jointly and severally liable for Mortimer’s entire judgment. 340 Associates had no significant assets beyond the License itself, and neither carried insurance for such actions nor was required by law to do so. Seeking to collect the balance of the judgment, Mortimer filed suit against 340 Associates, McCool Properties, Chris, Andy, and the Estate of Raymond (who died after the collision but before this lawsuit). Mortimer sought to "pierce the corporate veil" to hold some or all of the individual McCool defendants and McCool Properties liable for her judgment. While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that a narrow form of “enterprise liability” might be available under certain circumstances, it could not apply under the facts of this case: "We believe that our restrained, equitable posture toward veil-piercing cases has enabled Pennsylvania courts to do substantial justice in most cases, and that there is no clear reason to preclude per se the application of enterprise liability in the narrow form described herein." View "Mortimer v. McCool, et al." on Justia Law

The Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation (“PEDF”) challenged amendments the Pennsylvania General Assembly made to the state Fiscal Code that diverted to the General Fund revenues generated from oil and gas leases on state forest and game lands. PEDF claimed the legislation was unconstitutional, violating the Environmental Rights Amendment (the “ERA”). When this case returned to the Commonwealth Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the ERA created a constitutional public trust subject to private trust principles. Applying trust law, the Supreme Court determined that royalty revenue streams generated by the sale of gas extracted from Commonwealth lands represented the sale of trust assets and had to be returned to the corpus of the trust. To the extent that 72 P.S. sections 1602-E and 1603-E diverted royalties to the General Fund, the Court found the provisions violated the ERA. The Court lacked sufficient advocacy to determine if the remaining three revenue streams, consisting of large upfront bonus payments, yearly rental fees, and interest penalties for late payments that were allocated to the General Fund under Sections 1604-E and 1605-E, as well as Section 1912 of the Supplemental General Appropriations Act of 2009, also constituted the sale of trust assets. Thus the case was remanded to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings. On remand, the Commonwealth Court, sitting en banc, determined that the three revenue streams did not constitute the sale of trust assets. On return to the Supreme Court, it was determined the Commonwealth Court's holding was at odds with the Supreme Court's holding before remand. Another remand was unnecessary; the Supreme Court determined the record was sufficiently developed, and based upon that record it held the incomes generated under these oil and gas leases had to be returned to the corpus. As a result, the decision of the Commonwealth Court was reversed. View "PA. Environ. Defense Fd. v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

The primary issue raised in this discretionary appeal was whether the trial court properly excluded evidence that two of Appellant Eric Rogers’ rape victims had a history of prostitution convictions, where Appellant’s defense included a contention that the encounters were consensual instances of prostitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s ruling insofar as it upheld the common pleas court’s denial of Appellant’s motion in limine, thereby excluding from trial any evidence concerning the alleged prostitution convictions of A.P. and M.H. The intermediate court’s order was vacated, however, to the extent it found Appellant’s weight-of-the-evidence claim waived, and the matter was remanded for a merits disposition of that claim. View "Pennsylvania v. Rogers" on Justia Law

In 2018, B.W. went to his primary car provider’s office for “anxiety” and “agitation.” The provider’s notes reflect B.W. discussed making “credible threats of violence against a co-worker.” The provider recommended inpatient treatment, “involuntary if necessary.” B.W. made no threats to the provider’s staff. The provider certified B.W. needed involuntary examination and treatment, and B.W. was transported to another hospital for such examination. The hospital evaluator noted B.W. was “homicidal toward a co-worker,” and was “severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment.” B.W. was involuntarily committed and released after 72 hours. Thereafter, B.W. petitioned to expunge his mental health record, averring there was no basis for the involuntary commitment. A trial court found it undisputed B.W. made threats to harm his co-worker. Though he made no “act in furtherance” of his threats, the court concluded the medical evaluators’ records reflecting B.W.’s statement he would “strangle his co-worker the next time he saw” that person, was sufficient to support B.W. was a clear and present danger to others. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether the superior court erred in ordering the expungement of B.W.’s records on grounds that the trial court’s conclusion was wrong. The Supreme Court determined the records contained sufficient facts to prove B.W. made a threat to harm another person, and acted in furtherance of that threat, which the physicians found credible. Accordingly, judgment was reversed. View "In Re: B. W., Appeal of: Blair Dept Human Services" on Justia Law

In 2017, United States Marshalls went to the home of appellant Eric Yale’s mother (where Yale resided) to serve an arrest warrant on Larry Thompson. Officer Jeffrey Ference of the Wilkes-Barre Police Department assisted the Marshalls in serving the warrant. While searching the residence for Thompson, Officer Ference entered Yale’s bedroom, where he found Yale, soda bottles containing methamphetamine, and materials commonly used to produce methamphetamine, including lighter fluid, Drano, lithium batteries, and soda bottles with tubes coming out of them. Officer Ference found Thompson hiding in the closet in Yale’s bedroom. He took both Thompson and Yale into custody. After being read his Miranda rights, Yale admitted that the materials found in his bedroom were for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The Commonwealth alleged that Yale and Thompson were liable under both principal and accomplice theories of liability. Yale proceeded to a jury trial, and attempted to prove Thompson was solely responsible for the contraband found in Yale's bedroom. In support of this defense, Yale sought to introduce evidence of Thompson’s previous arrests for methamphetamine-related offenses. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted discretionary review to clarify the appropriate standard for the admission of evidence of a third person’s crimes, wrongs or other acts (“third person guilt”) offered by a criminal defendant in an effort to raise a reasonable doubt that he was not the perpetrator of the crime charged. The Superior Court applied the standard of admissibility typically associated with the Commonwealth’s introduction of crimes, wrongs or other acts evidence against a criminal defendant pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence (“Pa.R.E.”) 404(b). The Supreme Court held that evidence of a third person’s guilt offered by a defendant is admissible if it is relevant pursuant to Pa.R.E. 4012 and not otherwise excludable pursuant to Pa.R.E. 403. Thus, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Yale" on Justia Law