IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA"

Transcription

1 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carl Whitehead, : Appellant : : No C.D v. : : Submitted: November 14, 2014 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: January 21, 2015 Carl Whitehead (Whitehead) appeals, pro se, from the June 24, 2013 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County (trial court), granting the preliminary objections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and dismissing his complaint with prejudice. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. In February 2013, Whitehead, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset (SCI-Somerset), filed a complaint sounding in dental malpractice, listing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) as a party defendant in the caption. 1 In this complaint, Whitehead alleged that between April 2007 and April 2009, a John Doe dentist, acting as an agent or employee of the 1 As the Commonwealth concedes in its brief, although the Department of Corrections was not named in the caption of the complaint, the body of complaint sufficiently identifies the Department of Corrections as the intended defendant. (Commonwealth s brief at 4, n.1).

2 Department of Corrections, extracted his tooth and left bone fragments in his gums. Whitehead averred that he experienced and complained of pain but the John Doe dentist explained that this was usual; Whitehead continued to experience pain and other dentists from the Department of Corrections assured him that this was normal. According to Whitehead, he was later transferred to Green Rock Correctional Center in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, and a dental professional performed oral surgery and removed bone fragments from his gums where the John Doe dentist extracted his tooth. Whitehead alleged that the Department of Corrections, by and through its agent and/or employee, the John Doe dentist, was negligent in failing to exercise reasonable care in performing the tooth extraction and leaving bone fragments in his gums. Whitehead further averred that the John Doe dentist acted negligently as a matter of law and was negligent due to other acts/omissions that may become evident during discovery or trial. (Complaint, 1-10.) Along with his complaint, Whitehead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). In ruling on this application, the trial court, by order and memorandum dated February 15, 2013, determined that Whitehead lacked sufficient resources to pursue his claim. However, the trial court denied Whitehead IFP status because it concluded that his complaint was frivolous under Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1). 2 Particularly, the trial court found that Whitehead s complaint was deficient for failing to name the dentist or allege the relationship between the dentist and the Commonwealth; for failing to properly aver the standard of care, breach of the 2 This rule states: If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or proceeding or the taking of an appeal, a party has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court prior to acting upon the petition may dismiss the action, proceeding or appeal if the allegation of poverty is untrue or if it is satisfied that the action, proceeding or appeal is frivolous. Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1). 2

3 standard, and causation; and for failing to plead with specificity the alleged negligent acts of the John Doe dentist. In addition, the trial court noted that Whitehead must file a Certificate of Merit (COM) to support his claim of dental malpractice. Having found that Whitehead failed to set forth an appropriate cause of action for malpractice, the trial court dismissed his complaint and denied his request to proceed IFP. The trial court, nevertheless, permitted Whitehead to amend his complaint within 30 days, concluding that the deficiencies could be cured and that the factual pattern may well assert a cause of action if properly pled.... (Trial court op. at 1-2.) On February 25, 2013, the office of the Attorney General, unaware of the trial court s February 15, 2013 rulings, 3 entered its appearance and filed preliminary objections to Whitehead s original complaint in the nature of a demurrer. (Trial court op. at 3; Commonwealth s brief at 5.) On March 19, 2013, Whitehead filed a motion for a 60-day extension to file an amended complaint and a COM. Due to the trial court having received this motion, the trial court rescheduled argument on the Commonwealth s preliminary objections from April 29, 2013 to June 24, Thereafter, Whitehead filed another motion for a 60-day extension to file an amended complaint and a COM on June 19, Although the trial court received Whitehead s motions prior to the June 24, 2013 argument date, it did not rule on any of Whitehead s motions, noting that they were not filed with a scheduling praecipe as required by an unspecified local rule of court. (Trial court op. at 3-4.) 3 The Commonwealth asserts in its brief that its delayed appearance in the case stems from Whitehead s failure to properly file and serve his complaint. (Commonwealth s brief at 5.) The trial court notes the service discrepancy in its opinion, (Trial court op. at 3), but the discrepancy has no bearing on our analysis. 3

4 On June 24, 2013, the trial court entered an order sustaining the Commonwealth s preliminary objections and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. In doing so, the trial court recited most of the reasons in its previous order denying IFP status and determined that Whitehead failed to file an amended complaint; the complaint did not name a defendant other than the Commonwealth; Whitehead did not indicate an exception to sovereign immunity; and Whitehead failed to file a COM within 60 days of filing his complaint. (Trial court op. at 4-5). On appeal to this Court, 4 Whitehead argues that the trial court erred in utilizing Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1) to dismiss his original complaint as frivolous and grant him leave to amend the complaint. Whitehead asserts that his original complaint did not meet the level of frivolous. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1), a trial court can dismiss a complaint filed with a petition to proceed IFP if the trial court determines that the complaint is frivolous. Id. A frivolous action has been defined as one that lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1), Note (citation omitted). An action is frivolous under Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1), if, on its face, it does not set forth a valid cause of action. Keller v. Kinsley, 609 A.2d 567, 568 (Pa. Super. 1992). As we review Whitehead s complaint under Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1), we are mindful that a 4 In reviewing preliminary objections, we are required to accept as true all well-pled averments set forth in the pleadings and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. Pennsylvania Builders Association v. Department of Labor & Industry, 4 A.3d 215, 220 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). In order to sustain preliminary objections, it must appear with certainty that the law will not permit a different result; where any doubt exists as to whether the preliminary objections should be sustained, the doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the preliminary objections. Id. 4

5 pro se complaint should not be dismissed simply because it is not artfully drafted. Bell v. Mayview State Hospital, 853 A.2d 1058, 1060 (Pa. Super. 2004). 5 In order to establish a prima facie cause of action for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the physician owed a duty to the patient; (2) the physician breached that duty; (3) the breach of duty was the proximate cause of, or a substantial factor in, bringing about the harm suffered by the patient; and (4) the damages suffered by the patient were the direct result of that harm. Masgai v. Franklin, 787 A.2d 982, 985 (Pa. Super. 2001). Here, an examination of the averments in Whitehead s complaint reveals that the complaint does not meet the standard of frivolity. Whitehead specifically averred that the dentist, acting as an agent and/or employee of the Department of Corrections, extracted a tooth and left bone fragments in his gums that were later removed by another dentist. Whitehead also alleged the standard of care; the manner by which the dentist breached the standard; and the casual relationship between the breach and the harm is evident. Although Whitehead s allegations admittedly lack some detail for our fact-pleading jurisdiction, he has nevertheless pled a plausible claim of malpractice that has an arguable basis in both fact and law. Indeed, the trial court concluded as much in its February 15, 2013 order and memorandum by granting Whitehead leave to amend and finding that he could cure the minor pleading deficiencies in his complaint to state a valid cause of action. See Williams v. Syed, 782 A.2d 1090, 1095 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (addressing dismissal under Rule 240(j)(1): Where the elements to a cause of action are adequately set forth, a pro se 5 Appellate review of a decision dismissing an action pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1) is limited to a determination of whether an appellant s constitutional rights have been violated and whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. McGriff v. Vidovich, 699 A. 2d 797, 798 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). 5

6 complaint will not be dismissed just because it is not artfully drafted. ); cf. Ocasio v. Prison Health Services, 979 A.2d 352, (Pa. Super. 2009) (concluding that complaint was frivolous under Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1) because it could not be amended to correct pleading errors and state a claim). Moreover, dental malpractice is specifically enumerated as an exception to sovereign immunity in section 8522(b)(2) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. 8522(b)(2), 6 and in Pennsylvania a plaintiff may name a John Doe defendant in a complaint and later amend the complaint when the plaintiff discovers the identity of the John Doe. See Commonwealth v. Laventure, 894 A.2d 109, 117 n. 9 (Pa. 2006) (acknowledging the present state of Pennsylvania jurisprudence [to allow the substitution of] a named party for a fictitious party, such as John Doe ). Therefore, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Whitehead s amended complaint on grounds of frivolity, and we will reverse and remand to the trial court to reinstate Whitehead s original complaint and to issue a new decision on his application to proceed IFP. 7 6 This statutory provision states as follows: 42 Pa.C.S. 8522(b)(2). (b) Act which may impose liability. The following acts by a Commonwealth party may result in the imposition of liability on the Commonwealth and the defense of sovereign immunity shall not be raised for damages caused by... (2) Medical-professional liability. Acts of health care employees of Commonwealth agency medical facilities or institutions or by a Commonwealth party who is a doctor, dentist, nurse or related health care personnel. 7 Because the trial court erred in dismissing Whitehead s original complaint as frivolous, Whitehead was not obligated to file an amended complaint. 6

7 Next, Whitehead argues that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint for failing to file a COM within 60 days of his original complaint. Whitehead contends that his motions to extend the time for filing a COM toll the time period to file a COM until the trial court rules on the motions. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No (a), a plaintiff asserting that a licensed professional, including a dentist, breached the standard of care shall file a COM with the complaint or within 60 days after filing the complaint. Pa.R.C.P. No (a). See Pa.R.C.P. No (c)(11)(v) (listing a dentist as a licensed professional ). Among other things, a COM must state that: (1) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm, or (2) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim. Id. 8 8 Pa.R.C.P. No (a) provides: Rule Certificate of Merit (a) In any action based upon an allegation that a licensed professional deviated from an acceptable professional standard, the attorney for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff if not represented, shall file with the complaint or within sixty days after the filing of the complaint, a certificate of merit signed by the attorney or party that either (1) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm, or (Footnote continued on next page ) 7

8 If a plaintiff fails to file a COM, the defendant may file a notice of intention to enter a judgment of non pros, and, if the plaintiff fails to take appropriate action within 30 days, the defendant may praecipe the prothonotary for entry of a judgment of non pros. Pa.R.C.P. No ; Pa.R.C.P. No (continued ) (2) the claim that the defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard, or (3) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim. 9 Pa.R.C.P. No provides: Apart from a Rule Notice of Intent to Enter Judgment of Non Pros for Failure to File Certificate of Merit. Motion to Determine Necessity to File Certificate. Form of Notice (a) Except as provided by subdivision (b), a defendant seeking to enter a judgment of non pros under Rule (a) shall file a written notice of intention to file the praecipe and serve it on the party's attorney of record or on the party if unrepresented, no sooner than the thirty-first day after the filing of the complaint. (b) A judgment of non pros may be entered as provided by Rule (a) without notice if (1) the court has granted a motion to extend the time to file the certificate and the plaintiff has failed to file it within the extended time, or (2) the court has denied the motion to extend the time. (c) Upon the filing of a notice under subdivision (a) of this rule, a plaintiff may file a motion seeking a determination by the court as to the necessity of filing a certificate of merit. The filing of the motion (Footnote continued on next page ) 8

9 defendant s remedy of receiving a judgment of non pros 30 days after filing a notice of intention, there is no mechanism prescribed by our Rules of Civil Procedure that would permit a complaint to be dismissed or judgment entered against a plaintiff for failing to file a COM. Further, a plaintiff has 13 days after the defendant files a notice of intention to file a motion to extend the time for filing a COM. Pa.R.C.P. No. (continued ) tolls the time period within which a certificate of merit must be filed until the court rules upon the motion. If it is determined that a certificate of merit is required, the plaintiff must file the certificate within twenty days of entry of the court order on the docket or the original time period, whichever is later. Pa.R.C.P. No provides: Rule Entry of Judgment of Non Pros for Failure to File Certification. Form of Praecipe (a) The prothonotary, on praecipe of the defendant, shall enter a judgment of non pros against the plaintiff for failure to file a certificate of merit within the required time provided that (1) there is no pending motion for determination that the filing of a certificate is not required or no pending timely filed motion seeking to extend the time to file the certificate, (2) no certificate of merit has been filed, (3) except as provided by Rule (b), the defendant has attached to the praecipe a certificate of service of the notice of intention to enter the judgment of non pros, and (4) except as provided by Rule (b), the praecipe is filed no less than thirty days after the date of the filing of the notice of intention to enter the judgment of non pros. 9

10 1042.3(d). If the plaintiff files an extension motion, [t]he Court, upon good cause shown, shall extend the time for filing a [COM] for a period not to exceed [60] days. Pa.R.C.P. No (d). Notably, [t]he filing of a motion to extend tolls the time period within which a [COM] must be filed until the court rules on the motion. Id. 10 A party seeking an extension to file a COM must act with reasonable diligence to see that the motion is promptly presented to the court if required by local practice. Id., Note. Here, on March 19, 2013, and June 19, 2013, Whitehead filed motions for a 60-day extension to file a COM and an amended complaint. Although the trial court received both of these motions, apparently within a few days or a week after they were filed, the trial court did not rule on either of them, noting that Whitehead failed to properly present the motions with a scheduling praecipe in accordance with a local rule. However, pursuant to Somerset County Local Rule 208.3(a)(A)(1) and (B)(2)(b), a motion to permit amendment of a pleading may be filed in motions court without a scheduling praecipe. 11 Because Whitehead s motions sought permission to amend his complaint as well as extend the time to file a COM (an integral part of a 10 Pa.R.C.P. No (d) states: The court, upon good cause shown, shall extend the time for filing a certificate of merit for a period not to exceed sixty days. A motion to extend the time for filing a certificate of merit must be filed by the thirtieth day after the filing of a notice of intention to enter judgment of non pros on a professional liability claim under Rule (a) or on or before the expiration of the extended time where a court has granted a motion to extend the time to file a certificate of merit, whichever is greater. The filing of a motion to extend tolls the time period within which a certificate of merit must be filed until the court rules upon the motion. 11 Local Rule 208.3(A)(1) and (B)(2)(b) state that a motion will be scheduled, argued, and decided at motions court, specifically where the relief requested is [t]o permit the amendment of a pleading. Contrariwise, a motion will be scheduled, argued, and decided by filing a scheduling praecipe when the motion is not one of those listed for motions court. 10

11 complaint), his motions did not necessarily require a scheduling praecipe and could have been adjudicated through motions court. This fact, coupled with the fact that the trial court possessed the motions in a timely fashion (especially the first one), demonstrates that Whitehead substantially complied with the local rule, and, more importantly, acted with reasonable diligence in presenting his motions to the trial court. See Pa.R.C.P. No (d), Note. Consequently, the time in which Whitehead was obligated to file a COM was tolled and continues to be tolled because the trial court never ruled on his motions for an extension. Pa.R.C.P. No (d) ( The filing of a motion to extend tolls the time period within which a [COM] must be filed until the court rules on the motion. ). Moreover, even if Whitehead did not present the motions to the trial court in a reasonably prompt manner, the trial court lacked the legal authority to dismiss his complaint for failing to file a COM. Where, as here, a plaintiff has not previously been granted an extension to file a COM, a plaintiff has until 13 days after the defendant files a notice of intention to file a motion for an extension. In this case, however, the Commonwealth never filed a notice of intention. As a result, Whitehead was not yet obligated to file a COM, and he can still file a timely motion for an extension. See Pa.R.C.P. No (d) (stating that a motion to extend time is filed timely if it is filed by the 13th day after the defendant filed notice of intention to enter a judgment of non pros); Pa.R.C.P. No (stating that a judgment of non pros may be entered provided that the defendant has filed a notice of intention, waited 30 days, and there is no pending motion seeking to extend the time to file a COM). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing Whitehead s 11

12 complaint for failing to file a timely COM. 12 Accordingly, we will reverse and remand to the trial court to either rule on Whitehead s motion(s) for a 60-day extension to file a COM or permit Whitehead to file another motion for a 60-day extension if changed circumstances have arisen. For the above-stated reasons, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error. On remand, the trial court shall reinstate Whitehead s original complaint, issue a new decision on his application to proceed IFP, and rule on his motion(s) for a 60-day extension to file a COM or allow Whitehead to file another motion for a 60-day extension. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum opinion. PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge 12 In a passing reference, the trial court stated that, on its face, Whitehead s complaint would be barred by the two year statute of limitations (SOL) for malpractice claims. (Trial court op. at 2.) We disagree. Although Whitehead filed his complaint approximately four years after the alleged event occurred, he averred that he received repeated assurances from dentists at the Department of Corrections that his pain was normal and would subside. Typically, such assurances will toll the running of the SOL. See Bohus v. Beloff, 950 F.2d 919, 924, (3d Cir. 1991) (applying Pennsylvania law) (concluding that [b]ecause [the doctor] repeatedly assured [the patient] that her pain was part of the normal healing process and would eventually subside, the SOL was tolled until the patient saw another doctor who suggested that [the first doctor] had done something wrong ). Consequently, at this stage of the proceedings, it is not clear and free from doubt that Whitehead s claim is barred by the SOL. 12

13 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carl Whitehead, : Appellant : : No C.D v. : : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania : ORDER AND NOW, this 21 st day of January, 2015, the June 24, 2013 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished. PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Richard P. Glunk, M.D, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2052 C.D. 2012 : SUBMITTED: May 17, 2013 Mark Greenwald :

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Richard P. Glunk, M.D, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2052 C.D. 2012 : SUBMITTED: May 17, 2013 Mark Greenwald : IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Richard P. Glunk, M.D, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2052 C.D. 2012 : SUBMITTED: May 17, 2013 Mark Greenwald : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : CHRISTOPHER KORNICKI : CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION : Appellants, : MARCH TERM, 2006 : No. 2735 v. : : Superior Court

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LUZ RIVERA AND ABRIANNA RIVERA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD MANZI Appellee No. 948 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 85 C.D. 2006 : Argued: November 14, 2006 James Carpino, : Appellant :

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 85 C.D. 2006 : Argued: November 14, 2006 James Carpino, : Appellant : IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 85 C.D. 2006 : Argued: November 14, 2006 James Carpino, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE MARY

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellee No. 2212 EDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellee No. 2212 EDA 2013 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 TROY BAYLOR Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND DETECTIVE PATRICIA WONG Appellee No. 2212 EDA 2013 Appeal

More information

Case4:13-cv-02535-CW Document10 Filed09/24/13 Page1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case4:13-cv-02535-CW Document10 Filed09/24/13 Page1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-0-CW Document0 Filed0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 FRED FULFORD, Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR GRIFFEN, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NORMAN McMAHON, v. Appellant INNOVATIVE PAYROLL SERVICES, LLC AND JOHN S. SCHOLTZ, Appellees IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2384 EDA

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Easton Condominium Association, : Inc. : : v. : No. 2015 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: August 28, 2015 Kristina A. Nash, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re Petition of the Tax Claim Bureau of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, to Sell Free and Clear the Property of Estate of Anna S. Rowley, her heirs and assigns

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appeal of: The Buzbee Law Firm No. 3340 EDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appeal of: The Buzbee Law Firm No. 3340 EDA 2014 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL, LLP IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee THIRD PILLAR SYSTEMS, INC. AND THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM v.

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jay Ebersole, Administrator of the : Estate of Stephanie Jo Ebersole, : Deceased : : v. : No. 1732 C.D. 2014 : Argued: February 9, 2015 Southeastern Pennsylvania

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION : : : : : : : : ORDER

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION : : : : : : : : ORDER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION COLLINS COLLISION CENTER, INC., ET AL v. REPUBLIC FIRST BANK ORDER AUGUST TERM, 2012 NO.

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 193 MDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 193 MDA 2014 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA GARY L. GEROW JR. v. Appellant No. 193 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MYLENA K. DRAKE, BY AND THROUGH HER ATTORNEY IN FACT JERRY DRAKE, v. PAUL G. HURLER, Appellant Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

More information

George J. Badey, III, Philadelphia, for petitioner. Robert F. Kelly, Jr., Media, for respondent.

George J. Badey, III, Philadelphia, for petitioner. Robert F. Kelly, Jr., Media, for respondent. 1202 Pa. Moses THOMAS, Petitioner v. WORKERS COMPENSATION AP- PEAL BOARD (DELAWARE COUNTY), Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs Oct. 1, 1999. Decided Feb. 25, 2000. Following

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. GARY LEE ROSE, Appellant No. 1335 MDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., : Plaintiff : vs. : NO: 12-1315 : ROBERT SUAREZ, JR., : A/K/A ROBERT SUAREZ, AND : PATRICIA A. CUNNINGHAM,

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

More information

Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Resinski

Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Resinski MONTGOMERY COUNTY LAW REPORTER 140-301 2003 MBA 30 Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Resinski [140 M.C.L.R., Part II Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Resinski APPEAL and ERROR Motion for Summary

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued April 19, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00361-CV FREDDIE L. WALKER, Appellant V. RISSIE OWENS, PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Starwood Airport Realty, : : Appellant : : v. : No. 326 C.D. 2014 : School District of Philadelphia : Argued: December 10, 2014 BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES LEE TROUTMAN Appellant No. 3477 EDA 2015 Appeal from the

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION ORDER

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION ORDER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE Plaintiff : JANUARY TERM 2008 : : No. 4100 v. : : COMMERCE PROGRAM

More information

Statement of the Case

Statement of the Case MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session CONNIE REDMOND v. WALMART STORES, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 13C3247 Joseph P. Binkley,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 J. S41027/16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : HASAN COLLIER, JR. : Appellant : : No. 3230 EDA

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION HINDA APPLE, Case No. 1:13-cv-01169 Plaintiff, Judge Dan Aaron Polster vs. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER STRYKER CORP., et al.,

More information

STEPHEN S. EDWARDS, individually and as Trustee of the Super Trust Fund, u/t/d June 15, 2001, Plaintiff/Appellant,

STEPHEN S. EDWARDS, individually and as Trustee of the Super Trust Fund, u/t/d June 15, 2001, Plaintiff/Appellant, NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STEPHEN

More information

2015 PA Super 101. : : : : : Appellees : No. 1900 EDA 2014

2015 PA Super 101. : : : : : Appellees : No. 1900 EDA 2014 2015 PA Super 101 ESTATE OF ARTHUR DENMARK, BY AND THROUGH HIS ADMINISTRATOR, ANTHONY W. HURST, SR., Appellant v. JOSEPH WILLIAMS, M.D., RAVINDRA C. HALLUR, M.D., MERCY PHILADELPHIA HOSPITAL AND MERCY

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408 JAMES K. MEADOR V. APPELLANT T O T A L C O M P L I A N C E CONSULTANTS, INC., AND BILL MEDLEY APPELLEES Opinion Delivered January 31, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-16291 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61429-RSR.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-16291 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61429-RSR. Case: 12-16291 Date Filed: 06/17/2013 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-16291 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61429-RSR MICHAEL

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 9/17/15; pub. order 10/13/15 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MOBILE MEDICAL SERVICES FOR PHYSICIANS AND ADVANCED PRACTICE

More information

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0106. Medical malpractice-use of expert witnesses. A BILL. for. AN ACT relating to medical malpractice actions; providing

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0106. Medical malpractice-use of expert witnesses. A BILL. for. AN ACT relating to medical malpractice actions; providing 00 STATE OF WYOMING 0LSO-0 HOUSE BILL NO. HB0 Medical malpractice-use of expert witnesses. Sponsored by: Representative(s) Gingery A BILL for AN ACT relating to medical malpractice actions; providing for

More information

CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG)

CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG) CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG) State of Minnesota ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Robert B. Beale, Rebecca S.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

OPINION Richard B. Klein DATE: June 14, 2001. Plaintiff, Patricia Daniels, filed this lawsuit on behalf of

OPINION Richard B. Klein DATE: June 14, 2001. Plaintiff, Patricia Daniels, filed this lawsuit on behalf of PATRICIA DANIELS, p/n/g of : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY RODERICK STERLING, a minor : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : TRIAL DIVISION v. : June Term, 1996 : HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA : NO. 2450 COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC :

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Ann Wilson, : : Appellant : : v. : No. 659 C.D. 2008 : No. 660 C.D. 2008 Travelers Insurance Company and : Allied Signal, Inc. : Submitted: October 30, 2009 BEFORE:

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL

More information

Discovery Expert Reports

Discovery Expert Reports Discovery Expert Reports Local Rule 4002.1 Filing Discovery Material. Requests for Expert Reports in Professional Negligence and All requests for production of expert reports made in professional negligence

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 01-CV-217. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-1780-00)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 01-CV-217. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-1780-00) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SANDRA H. DEYA and EDWIN DEYA, individually and as next friends and natural

More information

NO. 14-B-0619 IN RE: DAVID P. BUEHLER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

NO. 14-B-0619 IN RE: DAVID P. BUEHLER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 05/23/2014 "See News Release 028 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 14-B-0619 IN RE: DAVID P. BUEHLER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM Pursuant to Supreme

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Uhl v. McKoski, 2014-Ohio-479.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) VICKIE L. UHL C.A. No. 27066 Appellant v. JOHN MCKOSKI, et al. Appellees

More information

Compulsory Arbitration

Compulsory Arbitration Local Rule 1301 Scope. Compulsory Arbitration Local Rule 1301 Scope. (1) The following civil actions shall first be submitted to and heard by a Board of Arbitrators: (a) (b) (c) (d) Civil actions, proceedings

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY. Date Submitted: February 6, 2009 Date Decided: December 16, 2009

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY. Date Submitted: February 6, 2009 Date Decided: December 16, 2009 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ANN M. BAKER, ) ) Defendant-Below, ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 0803038600 ) STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) Plaintiff-Below, ) Appellee.

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION PHILADELPHIA FACTORS, INC. : JUNE TERM, 2002 v. : No. 1726 THE WORKING DATA GROUP, INC.,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Richard Thomas, : Petitioner : : No. 1334 C.D. 2011 v. : : Submitted: March 2, 2012 Pennsylvania Board of Probation : and Parole, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division PUBLISHED UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division IN RE: WILLIAM G. DADE ) Case No. 00-32487 ANN E. DADE ) Chapter 7 Debtors. ) ) ) DEBORAH R. JOHNSON ) Adversary

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IA Construction Corporation and : Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2151 C.D. 2013 : Argued: November 10, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 26, 2012

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 26, 2012 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 26, 2012 JANICE RIDDLE v. KEITH CARLTON Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-001065-II Kay Spalding Robilio,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Submitted On Briefs November 18, 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Submitted On Briefs November 18, 2009 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Submitted On Briefs November 18, 2009 JOE HENRY MOORE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission No. 20-101-047 Nancy C. Miller

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: THOMAS B. O FARRELL McClure & O Farrell, P.C. Westfield, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA ALFRED McCLURE, Appellant-Defendant, vs. No. 86A03-0801-CV-38

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 TROYCEE JADE STONE v. Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 4 RIDES AUTO SALES, LLC AND FURAD WOODARD Appellant No. 2829 EDA 2014 Appeal

More information

2014 IL App (1st) 130250-U. No. 1-13-0250 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2014 IL App (1st) 130250-U. No. 1-13-0250 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2014 IL App (1st) 130250-U FIFTH DIVISION September 12, 2014 No. 1-13-0250 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 : : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 : : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 SOKHAM NUON, SOCHEATA NUON, AND PHOROM ROS, v. Appellants BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE GROUP, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1867

More information

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463 (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission did not err

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG. No. 13. September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND WILLIAM M.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG. No. 13. September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND WILLIAM M. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 13 September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM M. LOGAN Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene JJ.

More information

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued June 11, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00636-CV SINHUE TEMPLOS, Appellant V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

More information

CHAPTER 7. APPELLATE RULES MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985

CHAPTER 7. APPELLATE RULES MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985 CHAPTER 7. APPELLATE RULES MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985 Subchapter 7.100 Appeals to Circuit Court Rule 7.101 Scope of Rules (A) Scope of Rules. The rules in this subchapter govern appeals to the circuit

More information

Case 1:04-cv-00446-MHW Document 19 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

Case 1:04-cv-00446-MHW Document 19 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO Case 1:04-cv-00446-MHW Document 19 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO LETHA RUPERT, Case No. CV 04-446-S-MHW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

More information

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION THE MOUNTBATTEN SURETY COMPANY, INC. : October Term, 2001 Plaintiff, : v. : No. 3341 LANDMARK

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Selective Insurance : Company of America, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 613 C.D. 2013 : Submitted: October 4, 2013 Bureau of Workers' Compensation : Fee Review Hearing

More information

Decided: March 27, 2015. S14G0919. GALA et al. v. FISHER et al. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Fisher

Decided: March 27, 2015. S14G0919. GALA et al. v. FISHER et al. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Fisher In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 27, 2015 S14G0919. GALA et al. v. FISHER et al. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Fisher v. Gala,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ROGER D. SHAFFER AND ANN DOLIVEIRA SHAFFER, HIS WIFE, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants EBENSBURG POWER CO.; BABCOCK & WILCOX

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 24, 2012 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 24, 2012 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 24, 2012 Session ANNA PARKER, ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF WANDA FAYE DOBBS, DECEASED ET AL. v. PORTLAND NURSING & NURSING REHAB ET AL. Appeal from

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY DARNELL SMITH, JR., Appellant No. 1314 MDA 2015 Appeal

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JASON WILLIAM CICHETTI Appellant No. 1465 MDA 2012 Appeal from

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HOWARD MEDICAL, INC. t/a CIVIL ACTION ADVANCE AMBULANCE SERVICE, NO. 00-5977 Plaintiff, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, t/a TEMPLE

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 05-1014. BRENDA WARNER, Appellant DR. GILBERT ROSS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 05-1014. BRENDA WARNER, Appellant DR. GILBERT ROSS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOT PRECEDENTIAL No. 05-1014 BRENDA WARNER, Appellant v. DR. GILBERT ROSS On Appeal from the Appellate Division of the District Court of the Virgin

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 : : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 : : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 TANESHA CARTER, v. Appellant PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 684 EDA 2014 Appeal from

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Mackey v. Luskin, 2007-Ohio-5844.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 88874 MAURICE L. MACKEY, SR. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. JOHN

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U. No. 1-14-3589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U. No. 1-14-3589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U SIXTH DIVISION September 11, 2015 No. 1-14-3589 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

Case 1:13-cv-00166-SOM-RLP Document 56 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 468 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Case 1:13-cv-00166-SOM-RLP Document 56 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 468 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII Case 1:13-cv-00166-SOM-RLP Document 56 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 468 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII GALINA OGEONE, vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CRAIG VAN ARSDEL Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2579 v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Smith, J. September 5,

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION KELLY RAMBO and PHILLIP J. BERG, ESQ. August Term, 2004 Plaintiffs, No. 03894 v. Commerce

More information

Case 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Case 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER Case 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9 WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAMES CZECH and WILLIAMS BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants. United States District Court

More information

J-A16026-15. Trial Court Order, 10/30/00, at 1].

J-A16026-15. Trial Court Order, 10/30/00, at 1]. NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JOANNA JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant ENERGY MANAGEMENT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JAMES YAGER. K. WILLIAM CLAUSON & a. Argued: April 3, 2014 Opinion Issued: August 13, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JAMES YAGER. K. WILLIAM CLAUSON & a. Argued: April 3, 2014 Opinion Issued: August 13, 2014 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: DECEMBER 7, 2012; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2011-CA-001108-MR ROBERT M. MCMULLAN, SR. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE

More information

RULES OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY FAMILY DIVISION. Commencement of Action Pursuant to Protection From Abuse Act 1

RULES OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY FAMILY DIVISION. Commencement of Action Pursuant to Protection From Abuse Act 1 RULES OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY FAMILY DIVISION Rule No. Page 52-FD-1900 General 1 52-FD-1901.3 Commencement of Action Pursuant to Protection From Abuse Act 1 52-FD-1910.4 Commencement

More information

Barbara Ruona, et al., v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 02-872

Barbara Ruona, et al., v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 02-872 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: BAYCOL PRODUCTS LITIGATION MDL No. 1431 (MJD) This Document also relates to: Barbara Ruona, et al., v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 02-872

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Safe Auto Insurance Company, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2247 C.D. 2004 : Argued: February 28, 2005 School District of Philadelphia, : Pride Coleman and Helena Coleman

More information

Case 3:11-cv-02791-D Document 11 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 62

Case 3:11-cv-02791-D Document 11 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 62 Case 3:11-cv-02791-D Document 11 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOHNNY RAY JOHNSON, # 483120, Plaintiff, v.

More information

2013 PA Super 29. APPEAL OF: THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY No. 1502 EDA 2012

2013 PA Super 29. APPEAL OF: THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY No. 1502 EDA 2012 2013 PA Super 29 PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND JOHN DOE A APPEAL OF: THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

More information

No. 2007-310-Appeal. (PC 06-3123) Present: Goldberg, Acting C.J., Flaherty, Suttell, Robinson, JJ., and Williams, C.J. (ret.).

No. 2007-310-Appeal. (PC 06-3123) Present: Goldberg, Acting C.J., Flaherty, Suttell, Robinson, JJ., and Williams, C.J. (ret.). Supreme Court No. 2007-310-Appeal. (PC 06-3123) Cathy Lee Barrette : v. : Vincent John Yakavonis, M.D. : Present: Goldberg, Acting C.J., Flaherty, Suttell, Robinson, JJ., and Williams, C.J. (ret.). O P

More information

In The NO. 14-99-00494-CV. ALTON SIMMONS, Appellant. DREW WILLIAMS, Appellee

In The NO. 14-99-00494-CV. ALTON SIMMONS, Appellant. DREW WILLIAMS, Appellee Affirmed and Opinion filed December 21, 2000. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-99-00494-CV ALTON SIMMONS, Appellant V. DREW WILLIAMS, Appellee On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U. No. 1-14-1310 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U. No. 1-14-1310 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-1310 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., Petitioner v. No. 1188 C.D. 2013 Argued February 11, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Ketterer), Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE

More information

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

Consensus of Judges on Multnomah County Court Foreclosure Panel

Consensus of Judges on Multnomah County Court Foreclosure Panel Consensus of Judges on Multnomah County Court Foreclosure Panel The judges who serve on the Multnomah County Court s Foreclosure Panel have been presented with the following recurring issues, which over

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS Filed 5/5/15 Jensen v. Krauss CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

case 2:09-cv-00201-WCL-APR document 19 filed 10/26/09 page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

case 2:09-cv-00201-WCL-APR document 19 filed 10/26/09 page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION case 2:09-cv-00201-WCL-APR document 19 filed 10/26/09 page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION ANDRE CHEAIRS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Cause No.: 2:09-CV-201

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellees No. 320 EDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellees No. 320 EDA 2014 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ONE WEST BANK, FSB, v. Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARIE B. LUTZ AND CLAUDIA PINTO, Appellees No. 320 EDA 2014 Appeal from

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Affirmed and Opinion filed February 7, 2002. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-01144-CV ANTONIO GARCIA, JR., Appellant V. PALESTINE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, n/k/a MEMORIAL MOTHER FRANCES HOSPITAL,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Discovery Charter School, Petitioner v. No. 673 C.D. 2014 Argued February 10, 2015 School District of Philadelphia and School Reform Commission, Respondents BEFORE

More information