Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants appealed a Commonwealth Court decision which considered the application of personal income tax (PIT) to various nonresidents, who invested as limited partners in a Connecticut limited partnership, which existed for the sole purpose of owning and operating a skyscraper in Pittsburgh, which ultimately went into foreclosure in 2005. The Commonwealth Court held that the partnership was subject to PIT commensurate with the total debt discharged as a result of the foreclosure, and therefore the nonresident limited partners were liable for PIT in an amount proportionate with their shares in the partnership. The Partnership incurred net operating losses for accounting, federal tax, and PIT purposes in every year of its existence. For PIT purposes, the Partnership allocated those losses to Appellants (and all of the other limited partners) and, because Appellants had no Pennsylvania-based income for 1985-2004, they did not file Pennsylvania PIT returns for those years. By June 30, 2005, the compounded, accrued interest totaled $2.32 billion, thus making the total liability on the Purchase Money Note more than $2.6 billion. When the Note matured given the insurmountable debt that had accrued, the Partnership was unable to sell the Property. Accordingly, the lender foreclosed, and, because the Partnership no longer owned the Property, the Partnership soon after liquidated. None of the limited partners, including Appellants, received any proceeds from the Property’s foreclosure or the Partnership’s liquidation, and therefore lost their entire investments in the Partnership. Following the Property’s foreclosure, but prior to the Partnership’s liquidation, the Partnership reported a gain as a result of the foreclosure on its federal and state tax filings that consisted of the unpaid balance of the Purchase Money Note’s principal and the accrued, compounded interest. Despite their individual investment losses, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue assessed PIT against Appellants, plus interest and penalties, related to the foreclosure on the Property for the 2005 tax year. The Supreme Court empathized with Appellants who found "themselves with significant financial burdens because of the loss of their investments, the liquidation of the Partnership, and the foreclosure of the Property." Nevertheless, the assessment of PIT by the Department was proper, as a matter of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law. Therefore, the Court affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court sustaining the assessment of PIT. View "Wirth v. Pennsylvania " on Justia Law

Appellees are former Community College of Beaver County students who, according to their allegations, enrolled in and completed substantial work in CCBC's police training program. Their academic progress was cut short when, in 2002, CCBC’s alleged malfeasance caused state officials to decertify the program, thereby rendering their educational and financial investments largely worthless. Appellees filed actions in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, asserting claims of breach of contract, breach of warranty, and a claim under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law 's (UTPCPL) provisions providing a private cause of action for "persons" injured by other "persons'" employment of unfair trade practices. In this appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court centered on whether the UTPCPL defined a "person" subject to liability as including both private entities and political subdivision agencies. After careful review, the Supreme Court held that the UTPCPL defined a "person" as including private entities, but not political subdivision agencies. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's order affirming the trial court's denial of partial summary judgment on this issue and remanded to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings. View "Meyer v. Community College of Beaver County" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court centered on the interpretation of Sections 6152(a)(1) and (a)(2)(i) of the Medical Records Act ("MRA,"42 Pa.C.S. secs. 6151-6160), which requires businesses such as appellee MRO Corporation, which reproduces medical records for patients and their representatives, to limit their copying charges to their estimated actual and reasonable expenses of reproducing requested charts or records (subject to a statutory ceiling rate), or whether such businesses may simply charge the statutory ceiling rate. Appellant asked the Court to review the Superior Court's finding that, where a medical records reproducer fails to disclose and charge its estimated actual and reasonable expenses and instead charges the MRA's ceiling rates which the records requestor then pays, the defenses of "voluntary payment" and "prior approval" bars the records requestor from maintaining a breach of contract claim to recoup alleged overpayments. MRO did not dispute that the MRA requires the records reproducer to disclose to the requestor “the estimated actual and reasonable expenses” of reproduction. But, MRO argues that the "expenses" so disclosed do not represent actual costs of reproduction; rather, MRO argues that "expenses" refers to the cost to the party making the request, and that expense is determined by the pricing schedule. In MRO's view, the pricing schedule establishes the "expense" to be estimated and then passed on to the requestor. "MRO's construction of the Act is intricate and ingenious in some respects, and it articulates what may be a rational and legitimate approach to the general question of how best and fairly to regulate the expenses of securing medical records." However, the Supreme Court did not believe that the structure and plain language of the provisions of the Act at issue here supported MRO's construction. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Wayne M. Chiurazzi Law, Inc., et al. v. MRO Corporation" on Justia Law

Appellee was arrested and charged with knowing and intentional possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (PWID), and conspiracy with another to commit PWID. At appellee’s bench trial, the Commonwealth presented Officer Richard Cujdik’s testimony, money seized from the other person, and the drugs. The trial court found appellee guilty of conspiracy and possession of a controlled substance, but not guilty of PWID. Appellee was then sentenced to six to 23 months imprisonment followed by two years' probation for conspiracy, and a concurrent six to 23 months imprisonment and one year of probation for possession. Four days after the trial, the Philadelphia Daily News published an article alleging police misconduct by Officer Cujdik, his brother (also a narcotics officer), and other officers during a raid of a convenience store in 2007. In this appeal, the issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether a newspaper article submitted as the sole support for a motion for new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence warranted the grant of a hearing. Finding allegations in an article did not constitute evidence, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s order remanding for a hearing on appellee’s after-discovered evidence claim. View "Pennsylvania v. Castro" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint charging appellee Junius Burno with, inter alia, two counts of criminal homicide. A jury found him guilty on two counts of first-degree murder. The jury found one aggravating circumstance and the mitigation catchall, and determined that the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating, thus sentencing appellee to death. The Commonwealth appealed the trial court’s order granting appellee a new trial based on his trial counsel’s alleged ineffective representation in failing to object to remarks made by the prosecutor during her closing argument to the jury. Appellee filed a cross-appeal claiming the trial court erred in refusing to grant him relief on numerous remaining issues, which he raised in post-sentence motions. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order granting Burno’s motion for a new trial, remanded for the resolution of any pending preserved claims related to trial court error raised in appellee's post-sentence motion, and dismissed his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel without prejudice to his right to pursue those collateral claims under the PCRA. View "Pennsylvania v. Burno" on Justia Law

Appellant raised twenty-five lettered issues, "nearly exhausting the alphabet," to challenge the two death sentences he received after a jury convicted him of first degree murder and abuse of corpse. "Appellant’s brief is replete with beyond-boilerplate allegations containing sparse argument and even less citation to supporting authority or identification of pertinent portions of the record. His attempt to incorporate the entire trial transcript into his brief [was] insufficient, [. . .] as are his bald assertions containing no developed argument." Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant's convictions and sentences. View "Pennsylvania v. Perez" on Justia Law

In 1975, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board certified Intervenor, AFSCME, District Council 89 ("Union") as the exclusive representative of a unit for purposes of collective bargaining which included, inter alia, prison security guards, special guards, and transportation, maintenance, and supply employees. Since the unit certification, Appellee Lancaster County and the Union have been parties to several collective bargaining agreements. However, notwithstanding the Board's certification of maintenance employees in the bargaining unit, the parties have not negotiated over the wages, hours, and conditions of employment for the Maintenance Mechanic I and Maintenance Mechanic II positions. In 2009, the County Commissioners adopted a reorganization plan that placed all County maintenance and custodial employees under the centralized Facilities Management Department. Two days later, the Union filed with the Board a petition for bargaining unit clarification which sought to include the positions of Maintenance Mechanic I and Maintenance Mechanic II in the unit of prison guards. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether county prison maintenance employees who supervise inmates constituted "guards at prisons" for purposes of collective bargaining unit placement under the Pennsylvania Employe Relations Act. After review, the Court held that the Commonwealth Court did not apply the proper level of deference in its appellate review of the decision of the Labor Relations Board which concluded that supervisory maintenance employees at issue were “guards at prisons” for purposes of collective bargaining. Thus, the Court reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court and reinstated the Board’s determination. View "Lancaster Cty v. PA Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

This appeal centered on whether the Pennsylvania School Code's compulsory school age and attendance provisions applied to children under eight years old whose parents voluntarily enrolled them in public kindergarten programs made available by school districts. The trial court and Commonwealth Court both held that once a child who meets a district's minimum entrance age is enrolled in a district's public school kindergarten program, the child is subject to compulsory school attendance, meaning continuous and consistent attendance without excessive unexcused absences. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. Kerstetter" on Justia Law

This case was among a number of civil actions brought by state attorneys general against pharmaceutical companies challenging the propriety of prescription drug pricing, as it impacted third-party reimbursement for brand-name drug purchases subsidized by government social welfare programs. The Commonwealth focused its claims upon alleged overpayments tied to the use of an industry benchmark figure (average wholesale price, or "AWP") in government reimbursement formulas. While many issues of concern were raised about the Commonwealth’s approach to this litigation and the judgment it has obtained, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the monetary component of that judgment grounded on the Commonwealth’s failure to offer a rational accounting for the billion dollars in rebate monies which Commonwealth agencies received from the drug manufacturers it sued. View "Pennsylvania v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc." on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the manifestation of an occupational disease outside of the 300-week period prescribed by Section 301(c)(2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act removes the claim from the purview of the Act, such that the exclusivity provision of Section 303(a) does not apply. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded that claims for occupational disease which manifest outside of the 300-week period prescribed by the Act do not fall within the purview of the Act, and, therefore, that the exclusivity provision of Section 303(a) does not apply to preclude an employee from filing a common law claim against an employer. Accordingly, in these cases, the Court reversed the Superior Court's decision.View "Tooey v. AK Steel" on Justia Law