Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant, I.S. (“Mother”), had twin sons born in Serbia in 1998. In 2005, Mother married Appellee, A.S. (“Stepfather”) in Serbia and subsequently the family relocated to Pennsylvania. The parties and the children resided together until 2009 when the parties separated. Following their separation, Mother and Stepfather informally shared physical custody of the children, who were about eleven years of age. In 2010, Stepfather filed for divorce. Mother graduated from law school in May 2012 and took the California bar examination in July 2012, planning to relocate to California with the children at the end of September that year. In August 2012, Stepfather filed a complaint for custody of the children and an emergency petition to prevent Mother’s relocation, asserting that he stood in loco parentis to the children. In 2013, the trial court held a hearing on Mother’s various preliminary motions seeking to dismiss Stepfather’s complaint for custody for lack of standing. The trial court concluded that Stepfather indeed stood in loco parentis to the children, and therefore it denied Mother’s motions. The case proceeded to a full custody hearing. Mother filed a complaint for child support against Stepfather. Following a support conference on March 4, 2013, a support master dismissed Mother’s complaint reasoning that Stepfather owed no duty to support the children because he was not their biological father. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine whether a stepparent could be obligated to pay child support for his former spouse’s biological children when he aggressively litigated for shared legal and physical custody of those children, including the filing of an action to prevent his former spouse from relocating with them. The Court held that we hold that when a stepparent takes affirmative legal steps to assume the same parental rights as a biological parent, the stepparent likewise assumes parental obligations, such as the payment of child support. View "A.S. v. I.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari review in this matter to address divergent decisions in the lower courts pertaining to the statutory scheme governing chemical testing of persons suspected of DUI and related traffic offenses. The Commonwealth Court has consistently construed the “Implied Consent Law” at 75 Pa.C.S. 1547 to require a motorist to assent unequivocally to an official request to take whichever statutorily-prescribed chemical test police select "on pain of" automatic license suspension, whereas the Superior Court has determined a motorist’s compliance with the law if he responds to the official request by asking to take a reasonably practicable, prescribed test of his choosing. The issue presented by the lower court analyses for the Supreme Court's review was, specifically, whether a motorist who requests an alternative test to the officer’s preferred test exercises a statutory right or, instead, refuses to submit to chemical testing in violation of the Implied Consent Law so as to incur suspension of his operating privileges. The Supreme Court found no right to alternative chemical testing in Section 1547. In this case, Appellant's request for alternative chemical testing instead of the test offered by the officer at the moment of his arrest constituted a refusal under the Implied Consent law, and the Commonwealth Court was correct in its analysis appellant's DUI conviction under the Law. View "Nardone v. Dept of Transportation" on Justia Law

Appellees were 34 individuals who owned or resided on properties adjacent to a 220-acre farm in York County, owned since 1986 by appellant George Phillips. Phillips operated his own farm, Hilltop Farms, and leased part of the land to appellant Steve Troyer, who raised various crops. Appellants Synagro Central, LLC and Synagro Mid-Atlantic are corporate entities engaged in the business of recycling biosolids for public agencies for land application; they contracted with municipalities to recycle and transport biosolids, which were then used as fertilizer. Over approximately 54 days between March 2006 and April 2009, approximately 11,635 wet tons of biosolids were applied to 14 fields at the farm. The biosolids were spread over the fields’ surface and not immediately tilled or plowed into the soil. Appellees contended that as soon as the biosolids were applied, extremely offensive odors emanated. In July 2008, appellees filed two similar three-count complaints, which were consolidated; they also filed an amended complaint in 2010. In Count I, appellees alleged appellants’ biosolids activities created a private nuisance. Count II alleged negligence by appellants in their duty to properly handle and dispose of the biosolids. Count III alleged appellants’ biosolids activities constituted a trespass on appellees’ land. Appellees sought injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. In October 2009, after receiving the third notice of violation from the PaDEP, Synagro suspended the use of biosolids at Hilltop Farms, rendering appellees’ request for injunctive relief moot. The last application of biosolids at the farm occurred in April 2009. Appellants moved for summary judgment on the basis that appellees’ nuisance claims were barred by the one-year statute of repose in section 954(a) of the Right To Farm Act (RTFA). The issue this appeal presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether a trial court or a jury should have determined the applicability of section 954(a), and whether the trial court properly concluded the land application of biosolids as fertilizer is a “normal agricultural operation,” rendering section 954(a) applicable. The Court held that section 954(a) was a statute of repose; its applicability, as determined by statutory interpretation, was a question of law for courts to decide. Further, the trial court properly held biosolids application fell within the RTFA’s definition of “normal agricultural operation,” which barred appellees’ nuisance claims. Accordingly, the Court reversed the portion of the Superior Court’s order that reversed the grant of summary judgment for appellants on the nuisance claims; the remainder of the order was affirmed. View "Gilbert v. Synagro Central" on Justia Law

In this appeal by allowance, we consider the breadth of the authority of an interest arbitration panel acting pursuant to the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act. In 2009, the contract between appellee City of Philadelphia and appellant the Michael G. Lutz Lodge No. 5 of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) expired, and the parties failed to negotiate a new one. The matter went to binding interest arbitration. An arbitration panel put a new collective bargaining agreement in place effective July 2009 to June 2013. One issue before the panel concerned advance notification and premium overtime for police officers for court appearances. The panel's authority came into question when it made decisions on the notification and overtime issues. The Supreme Court found that the interest arbitration panel's authority was limited to addressing issues properly submitted to the panel, or those questions reasonably subsumed within those issues. Here, the panel exceeded its authority by speaking to an issue that was neither bargained over, raised in prior related proceedings before the panel, nor reasonably subsumed within the issue that was properly before the panel. Accordingly, the Court reversed the order of the Commonwealth Court which affirmed the underlying interest arbitration award. View "Michael G. Lutz Lodge v. City of Phila." on Justia Law

Appellant Lower Merion Township was a township of the first class. Article IV of its municipal code required every person engaging in a business, trade, occupation, or profession in the Township to pay an annual business privilege tax calculated as a percentage of gross receipts. Appellees Fish, Hrabrick, and Briskin (“Lessors”) each own one or more parcels of real estate in the Township that they rent to tenants pursuant to lease agreements. The Township notified Lessors that, for every such parcel, they were obligated to purchase a separate business registration certificate and pay the business privilege tax based on all rental proceeds. Lessors sought a declaratory judgment stating that, pursuant to the Local Tax Enabling Act (the “LTEA”), the Township’s business privilege tax could not be applied to rental proceeds from leases and lease transactions. Lessors did not challenge the validity of Article IV generally. Rather, they observed that the LTEA’s general grant of power in this regard is subject to an exception stating that such local authorities lack the ability to “levy, assess, or collect . . . any tax on . . . leases or lease transactions[.]” Lessors argued their real property rental activities fell within the scope of this exception. The trial court granted the Township's motion, denied the Lessors' motion and dismissed the complaint. A divided Commonwealth Court reversed, but the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's judgment, reversed the Commonwealth Court and reinstated the trial court's order dismissing the complaint. View "Fish v. Twp of Lower Merion" on Justia Law

Appellant Wayne Smith was given a death sentence for his role in the 1994 strangulation of Eileen Jones. Appellant raised several alleged errors by the trial court that warranted reversal of the death sentence and for a new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant's judgment of sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2003, a jury convicted Raymond Solano of first-degree murder for the shooting death of his victim, who was playing basketball in a crowded park. After shooting victim repeatedly, Solano fled, but then turned around and shot toward the crowded park where victim lay; several casings were recovered from adjacent streets, and one bullet entered a nearby home. The Commonwealth appealed the order granting Solano relief post-conviction relief in the form of a new penalty phase, based on trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to present sufficient mitigating evidence. Solano cross-appealed the portion of the same order denying him guilt-phase relief. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgments. View "Pennsylvania v. Solano" on Justia Law

This case presented the issue of whether Governor Tom Wolf exceeded his constitutional authority pursuant to Article IV, Section 9(a) of the Pennsylvania Constitution when he issued a temporary reprieve to death row inmate Terrance Williams pending receipt of the forthcoming report of the Pennsylvania Task Force and Advisory Committee on Capital Punishment (Task Force) and until the concerns raised by the Task Force are addressed. Respondent Terrance Williams was convicted of first degree murder after he robbed and beat Amos Norwood to death with a tire iron in 1984. He was subsequently sentenced to death. On January 13, 2015, Governor Tom Corbett signed a death warrant scheduling Williams’ execution for March 4, 2015. Shortly after the death warrant was signed, Governor Tom Wolf assumed office and, on February 13, 2015, issued a reprieve of Williams’ death sentence. On the same day, Governor Wolf issued a Memorandum, explaining that he granted Williams’ reprieve because he believed that “the capital punishment system has significant and widely recognized defects.” Five days later, on February 18, 2015, the District Attorney of Philadelphia (Commonwealth) filed an Emergency Petition for Extraordinary Relief Under King’s Bench Jurisdiction, naming Respondent Williams as the opposing party, arguing that Governor Wolf was attempting to negate a criminal penalty applicable to an entire class of cases (i.e., first degree murder cases where the death penalty was imposed) based on his personal belief that Pennsylvania’s death penalty apparatus is flawed. The Commonwealth argued that the Pennsylvania Constitution did not permit the Governor to grant the purported reprieve for purposes of establishing a moratorium on the death penalty. The Supreme Court indeed exercised its King’s Bench authority to review the issue presented and concluded that Governor Wolf acted within his constitutional authority in granting the reprieve. View "Pennsylvania v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth appealed a Superior Court’s order finding appellee Raymond Farabaugh was not required to register as a sexual offender. In 2011, appellee pled guilty to indecent assault, graded as a second-degree misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to two years probation; at the time of sentencing, the law did not require appellee to register as a sexual offender. Later that year, amendments to Megan’s Law added crimes to the list defined as sexually violent offenses, and established a three-tiered system for classifying such offenses and their corresponding registration periods. The 2011 amendments became effective December 20, 2012; they applied to individuals who, as of that date, were convicted of a sexually violent offense and were incarcerated, on probation or parole, or subject to intermediate punishment. Appellee was subject to the reporting and registration requirements, and, as a Tier-II sexual offender, was required to register for 25 years. After Megan’s Law IV went into effect, appellee filed a “Petition to Enforce Plea Bargain/Habeas Corpus,” arguing that ordering him to comply with the new registration and reporting requirements violated his plea agreement and various state and federal constitutional provisions. The trial court denied the petition, and appellee appealed to the Superior Court. On March 14, 2014, while the appeal was pending and after the parties had submitted their briefs, the governor signed Act 19 into law, amending the provisions of Megan’s Law again; the Act was effective immediately and made retroactive to December 20, 2012. The Superior Court panel sua sponte addressed Act 19, holding the above language exempted appellee from the requirements of Megan’s Law. Finding that the Superior Court's holding was made in error, the Supreme Court reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Farabaugh" on Justia Law

This appeal centered on the availability of attorneys’ fee awards against insurance companies that have invoked the peer-review provisions of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). In 2004, Angela LaSelva sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. She was treated by a licensed chiropractor, David Novatnak, D.C., who practiced with appellee Doctor’s Choice Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Center, P.C. (“Provider”). Provider submitted invoices for the services directly to LaSelva’s first-party benefits insurance carrier, Appellant Travelers Personal Insurance Company (“Insurer”), as required per the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. Insurer later requested peer review through IMX Medical Management Services (“IMX”), a peer review organization (“PRO”). IMX, in turn, enlisted Mark Cavallo, D.C., to conduct the peer review. Dr. Cavallo issued a report deeming certain of the treatments provided by Dr. Novatnak to have been unnecessary. Based on this report, Insurer denied reimbursement for the treatment aspects deemed as excessive. Provider opposed this withholding and commenced a civil action against Insurer. Among other things, the complaint alleged that all treatments undertaken through Provider were reasonable and necessary and that the review conducted by IMX did not comport with the mandates of Section 1797 of the MVFRL. Furthermore, Provider asserted that IMX failed to comply with requirements of the Pennsylvania Code directing PROs to apply national or regional norms in their determinations or, where such norms do not exist, to establish written criteria to be used in conducting reviews. As relevant here, the complaint included a specific demand for attorneys’ fees. After a bench trial, the common pleas court entered a verdict in the Provider’s favor, encompassing an award of attorneys’ fees of approximately $39,000. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed the decision to strike the fee award. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court: "the Superior Court’s cryptic pronouncement of 'absurdity' [regarding fee-shifting] that lacks foundation. . . . This Court remains cognizant of the shortcomings of the peer-review regime. We have no reasonable means, however, of assessing the degree to which these may be offset by the benefits of cost containment and potentially lower insurance premiums available to the public at large. Rather, the Legislature is invested with the implements to conduct investigations, hearings, and open deliberations to address such salient policy matters. In such landscape, we decline to deviate from conventional statutory interpretation to advance directed policy aims." View "Doctor's Choice v. Traveler's Personal Ins." on Justia Law