Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
On the bench with
Commonwealth v. Reid, A., Aplt.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2022-08-16
This case is a capital murder appeal in which defendant Albert Reid challenged his convictions for killing his wife and daughter and the resulting death sentence on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Justice Saylor concurs in the result upholding the guilt phase and supports a remand for further proceedings but dissents as to the penalty phase. He would grant a new sentencing hearing because trial counsel, who lacked any prior capital case experience, elicited extensive bad-character evidence from defense witnesses, failed to present available mitigating evidence of brain damage and mental illness, and otherwise delivered a deficient penalty-phase presentation that left the jury without key information relevant to sentencing.
criminal law
Commonwealth v. Barr, T., Aplt.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-12-29
The case involved a challenge to a vehicle search based on the odor of burnt marijuana, in light of Pennsylvania's medical marijuana laws allowing legal consumption. The suppression court credited expert testimony that the smell of burnt marijuana from illegal smoking could not be distinguished from legally vaporized medical marijuana. Justice Saylor's concurrence noted that the ruling hinged on this credibility determination, rendering it potentially case-specific rather than supporting broader legal pronouncements by the majority. He reasoned that if the odor more likely resulted from combustion, it would indicate the probable commission of illegal marijuana smoking inside the vehicle.
criminal lawprocedure
Eastern Univ. Acad. C.S., Aplt. v. S.D. of Phila.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-12-22
This case involves a dispute over whether a school district's delay in deciding a charter school's renewal application beyond the end of the existing charter term automatically grants a new five-year charter. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that no such automatic renewal occurs under the Charter School Law. The majority and concurring/dissenting opinions agreed that the statute's language at 24 P.S. §17-1729-A does not impose automatic consequences for late decisions and that courts cannot create an extension where the legislature did not. The opinions focused on statutory interpretation of timing requirements and noted potential operational uncertainties for schools but concluded that any remedies for delays must come from legislative amendments rather than judicial action.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Hughes, C., Aplts. v. UGI Storage Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-11-29
This case involved landowners in Tioga County suing UGI Storage Company for inverse condemnation damages, alleging that UGI's operation of a natural gas storage field and designation of a surrounding buffer zone effectively took their properties without compensation. The lower courts had dismissed the claims, ruling that UGI could not be liable because it lacked eminent domain authority specifically tied to the properties at issue. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the Commonwealth Court's decision and remanded the case, holding that under the Eminent Domain Code, a public or quasi-public entity need only possess the general capacity to receive condemnation powers, not property-specific authority, to face inverse condemnation liability. The Court based this on a plain-meaning reading of the statute that aligns with constitutional requirements for just compensation in de facto takings. The matter returns to address an alternative waiver issue raised in the trial court.
property
Albrecht, J., Aplt. v. UGI Storage Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-11-29
In these consolidated cases, Pennsylvania landowners sued UGI Storage Company for inverse condemnation damages, alleging that the company's federally approved natural gas storage operations and proposed buffer zone in Tioga County substantially interfered with their properties. The trial court dismissed the petitions, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed, ruling that UGI could not be liable because it lacked eminent domain authority specific to the properties at issue. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated that decision, holding that under the Eminent Domain Code an entity need only possess general condemnation powers as a public or quasi-public entity to face potential inverse condemnation liability, without requiring property-specific authority. The court based this on a plain-meaning interpretation of the statute that aligns with constitutional requirements and remanded for further proceedings on other issues.
propertyprocedurefederal power
Fox v. Smith, Appeal of: Smith, S.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2021-11-17
This case involved a defamation lawsuit filed by Joy M. Fox against multiple defendants over statements published online, with appeals challenging the selected venue in Philadelphia County. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's ruling that venue was proper there. The court held that under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1006 and 2179, a defamation cause of action arises where defamatory statements are published, meaning where they are read and understood as such by third parties. It applied the same standards used in prior newspaper libel cases, noting that internet publications can create venue in multiple counties, and plaintiffs may select one where injury occurred without needing to show substantiality.
proceduretorts & liability