This case presented the Pennsylvania Superior Court with a matter of first impression: Whether the removal of a vehicle from an auto insurance policy providing non-stacked UIM coverage for three vehicles constituted the “purchase” of coverage as contemplated by section 1738(c) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Laws (MVFRL), such…
This case presented the Pennsylvania Superior Court with a matter of first impression: Whether the removal of a vehicle from an auto insurance policy providing non-stacked UIM coverage for three vehicles constituted the “purchase” of coverage as contemplated by section 1738(c) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Laws (MVFRL), such that the insured must be… Continue reading Franks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court’s determination of the cost of steel products under the Steel Products Procurement Act. The Steel Act embodies “the policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that all public officers and agencies should, at all times, aid and promote the development of the steel industry of the United States… Continue reading United Blower, Inc. v. Lycoming Cnty. Water & Sewer Auth.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided courts should stay out of this fray amongst local Republican party members. Appellant was a Republican committeeperson of Appellee, the Bucks County Republican Committee. After his election, the acting chairman of Appellee’s Ethics Committee sent a letter to Appellant advising him that two people had lodged complaints against him. The… Continue reading Mohn v. Bucks Co. Republican Comm.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a petition seeking a protective order under the Protection of Victims of Sexual Violence or Intimidation Act (“PVSVIA”) is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. K.N.B. petitioned the trial court for a Sexual Violence Protective Order (“SVPO”) under the PVSVIA. The legislature enacted the PVSVIA to give victims… Continue reading K.N.B. v. M.B.
How much can the government tax amusement? According to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: As much as it wants to. Well, perhaps not quite that extreme. But the Court ruled that a municipality may tax an amusement park more than 5% under 53 Pa.C.S. § 8402(c)(2) as long as the tax rate is equal to or… Continue reading Rausch Creek Off-Road Park, LLC v. Tremont Twp.
Tighten your safety belts and keep your hands in the car because this opinion is a wild ride involving municipal law and statutory interpretation. In these consolidated appeals, the City of Chester and Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. appealed from the trial court’s orders, which denied the motions for judgment on the pleadings filed by the City… Continue reading In re Chester Water Auth. Trust
Mother and Father are the parents of twin children (“the Children”). Mother has another child, A.Y., whose father died. Following A.Y.’s father’s death, the United States Social Security Administration awarded separate payments: (1) a Survivor’s Benefit to Mother, as a widow caring for a deceased person’s child; and (2) a survivor’s benefit payment to A.Y.… Continue reading C.H.Z. v. A.J.Y.
Appellants were injured at work and received temporary disability benefits through workers’ compensation. They filed a complaint against the State for a judgment declaring that their contributions towards healthcare premium costs should be based not on salary but “on the rate of Temporary Disability Benefits being paid.” Appellants sought declaratory relief permitting temporary disability benefits… Continue reading Grillo v. State
A quirky question of statutory construction resulted in the petitioner getting one more chance to avoid removal. The petitioner came to the U.S. from India without papers. Removal proceedings commenced, and the petitioner fled. In absentia, he was ordered removed. Later, he married in the U.S. and petitioned for asylum under a different name. That… Continue reading Singh v. Att’y Gen. U.S.
At 4 a.m., a police officer saw Rudolf standing in a playground, wearing a bright shirt and no pants. The officer charged him with indecent exposure and open lewdness, and a jury found Rudolf guilty. He appealed, arguing that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proof for indecent exposure. Specifically, he asserted that… Continue reading Commonwealth v. Rudolf