tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7252927614385527812024-03-08T12:21:01.619-08:00Pennsylvania Case Law UpdateUpdated Daily, cases released from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, archived by judge and topic. Daily updates to your email free of charge!Rominger Legalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08014255938078660959noreply@blogger.comBlogger767125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-9241483761837764672010-12-22T10:56:00.000-08:002011-01-12T11:10:36.293-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID EDWARD FECZKO<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/E02009_10.pdf" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID EDWARD FECZKO</a><br />No. 2028 MDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 239</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/22/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 23, 2009<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County<br />Criminal Division at No. CP-21-CR-0003145-2008</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, BENDER, BOWES, DONOHUE, SHOGAN, ALLEN, OLSON and OTT, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>BENDER, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>David Feczko (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his convictions for DUI-General Impairment, DUI-Highest Rate, and Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic. See 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(a)(1), (c), 3309(1). Appellant contends that the suppression court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress, which challenged the basis of the traffic stop. We conclude that the stop was legal because the officer had probable cause to believe that Appellant had committed a vehicle code violation. Accordingly, we affirm.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-67813914873881685912010-12-20T10:53:00.000-08:002011-01-12T10:56:00.622-08:00WILLIAM GILLARD v. ALDINE D. MARTIN AND AL-MAR RV, INC. APPEAL OF: AL-MAR RV, INC.<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/S44011_10.pdf" target="main">WILLIAM GILLARD v. ALDINE D. MARTIN AND AL-MAR RV, INC.<br />APPEAL OF: AL-MAR RV, INC.</a><br />No. 1329 MDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 238</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/20/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 21, 2009,<br />in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County<br />Civil Division at No. 2006-1590</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUNDY, J., AND McEWEN, P.J.E.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>FORD ELLIOT, P.J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Appellant, Al-Mar RV, Inc. (“Al-Mar”), appeals the entry of judgment in favor of appellee, William Gillard (“Gillard”), in the amount of $184,982.72. We affirm.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-90663364227734044912010-12-17T10:50:00.000-08:002011-01-12T10:53:05.233-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD MOORE<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/a32029_10.pdf" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD MOORE</a><br />No. 3078 EDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 236</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/17/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 25, 2009<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County<br />Criminal Division at Nos.:<br />MC-51-CR-0024655-2008 CP-51-CR-0000316-2009</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">BENDER, FREEDBER and COLVILLE, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>BENDER, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Richard Moore, Appellant, appeals from the judgment of sentence of three to six years’ incarceration, imposed after he was convicted of possession with intent to deliver (PWID) a controlled substance. On appeal, Moore contends that the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-28697751179243610352010-12-17T10:47:00.000-08:002011-01-12T10:50:06.331-08:00JAIMIE L. ECKROTH, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DOLORES LEONA HAMMOND DECEASED, KIMBERLY ANN BRANTER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JORDAN<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/A25008_10.PDF" target="main">JAIMIE L. ECKROTH, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DOLORES LEONA HAMMOND DECEASED, KIMBERLY ANN BRANTER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JORDAN MICHAEL ENGLISH, A MINOR, DECEASED, RONALD DEPTO AND DEBBIE DEPTO, CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF LINDSEY A. DEPTO, DECEASED, AND RONALD DEPTO AND DEBBIE DEPTO, IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, AND CHELSEY HAMMOND, A MINOR, BY HER PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, TIMOTHY J. HAMMOND, AND TIMOTHY J. HAMMOND, IN HIS OWN RIGHT v. PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC, INC., A CORPORATION, D/B/A PENELEC v. DAVID GUNTHER, JOHN ("JACK") SEXTON, INTERACTIVE PERFORMANCE, INC., AND OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS, INC.</a><br />No. 1934 WDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 235</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/17/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Order October 28, 2009<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County<br />Civil Division at No(s): Case No. 4842-2005</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">STEVENS, OLSON, and OTT, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>STEVENS, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>This is one of four appeals taken from the October 28, 2009 order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, which, sitting en banc, granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee Pennsylvania Electric, Inc. (“Penelec”) and dismissed Plaintiff/Appellants’ wrongful death/negligence action. By a 2-1 decision, the court determined that the fatal house fire from which this sad and tragic case arises was not proximately caused by Penelec’s allegedly negligent termination of electrical power to the home two days earlier. While it is foreseeable that a resident might light a candle to illuminate a home’s interior after dark, the court reasoned, it is unforeseeable that he would leave a 10” taper candle with exposed flame unattended overnight on a bathroom shelf just above where towels and toiletpaper were stored. We conclude that with two days and several unreasonable decisions by the residents separating Penelec’s alleged negligence and the fire, the causal chain between them was too remote as a matter of law to hold Penelec legally responsible for Appellant’s harm. Finding neither error of law nor abuse of discretion in the court’s ruling, therefore, we affirm.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-68166583006353881102010-12-17T10:45:00.000-08:002011-01-12T10:50:32.627-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FELIX DAVID RIVERA<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/S60038_10.PDF" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FELIX DAVID RIVERA</a><br />No. 344 MDA 2010 <i>2010 PA Super 237</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/17/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the PCRA Order of February 17, 2010 in the<br />Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division,<br />Nos. CR-0000113-07, CP-36-0002586-2007</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="">MUSMANNO, BENDER, and LAZARUS, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style=""><b>LAZARUS, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Felix David Rivera appeals from the order dismissing his amended petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9541, et seq. After careful consideration, we reverse.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-1189744781186671092010-12-16T13:50:00.000-08:002011-01-11T14:06:56.700-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAMON L. BENSON<hr /> <table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/S51038_10.PDF" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAMON L. BENSON</a><br />No. 3645 EDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 234</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/16/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 6, 2009,<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County<br />Criminal Division at No(s): CR-0000050-08, CP-46-CR-0004962-2008</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">LAZARUS, OLSON, and FREEDBERG, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>FREEDBERG, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Damon Benson appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on July 6, 2009, by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. We affirm the judgment of sentence.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-86413565862299157982010-12-15T13:43:00.000-08:002011-01-11T13:50:31.498-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID A. WILSON<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/E01006_10.pdf" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID A. WILSON</a><br />No. 2724 EDA 2008 <i>2010 PA Super 233</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/15/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of August 18, 2008<br /> In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County<br /> Criminal Division, No. CP-51-CR-0010866-2007</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., and STEVENS, GANTMAN, PANELLA, DONOHUE, SHOGAN, ALLEN, LAZARUS and MUNDY, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>PANELLA, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2">Concurring Statement by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>FORD ELLIOT, P.J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2">Dissenting Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>LAZARUS, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>This is an appeal from an order of the Philadelphia Gun Court which authorized random, warrantless searches as a condition of probation and parole for Appellant, David A. Wilson. Wilson raises a number of challenges to this condition, imposed by the Honorable Susan I. Shulman, on August 18, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. After careful review, we affirm the condition as it applies to the probationary sentence, but are required to vacate with respect to the state parole aspect of the sentence.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-37973907776434889082010-12-14T13:38:00.000-08:002011-01-11T13:43:42.239-08:00CHRISTINE M. EVANS v. GORDON P. BRAUN<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/S48038_10.pdf" target="main">CHRISTINE M. EVANS v. GORDON P. BRAUN</a><br />No. 291 MDA 2010 <i>2010 PA Super 231</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/14/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Order entered January 21, 2010<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County<br />Civil Division at No. 2010-102</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">BENDER, SHOGAN and CLELAND, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>BENDER, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2">Dissenting Statement by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>CLELAND, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Appellant, Gordon P. Braun, appeals from the January 21, 2010 order granting Appellee, Christine M. Evans, a final protection from abuse (PFA) order against him. Braun argues that the trial court erred in finding that Evans had standing to seek such an order under the Protection from Abuse Act (PFA Act), 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101-6122. We affirm.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-16487760686348121422010-12-13T13:35:00.000-08:002011-01-11T13:38:17.308-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ABRAHAM GONZALEZ<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/a13015_10.pdf" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ABRAHAM GONZALEZ</a><br />No. 687 EDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 229</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/13/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered January 23, 2009,<br />in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,<br />Criminal, No. CP-51-CR-0307451-2006</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., BOWES, J., and McEWEN, P.J.E.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>McEWEN, P.J.E.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2">Dissenting Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>BOWES, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Appellant, Abraham Gonzalez, here appeals from the judgment of sentence to serve a term of imprisonment of from two and one-half years to six years, a sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance (heroin) with intent to deliver. We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.</i></td></tr></tbody></table></td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered January 23, 2009,<br />in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,<br />Criminal, No. CP-51-CR-0307451-2006</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"><br /></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"><br /></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><br /></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-3845240413801789992010-12-13T12:49:00.000-08:002011-01-07T13:00:46.367-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN RUGGIANO, JR.<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/S51011_10.pdf" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN RUGGIANO, JR.</a><br />No. 1991 EDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 230</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a <b><span style="color:#ff0000;">Petition for Reargument Filed 12/23/2010</span></b> Filed: 12/13/2010 </i></td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of June 10, 2009<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Criminal<br />Division, Nos. CR-0000275-07, CP-09-CR-0008265-2007</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">LAZARUS, OLSON, and FREEDBERG, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>LAZARUS, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>John Ruggiano, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. Because we find that the trial court improperly precluded evidence pursuant to the Rape Shield Law, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 3104, we reverse and remand for a new trial.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-56696940601151056712010-12-10T12:46:00.000-08:002011-01-07T12:49:01.983-08:00RICHARD A. MARLETTE, SR. and MARLEEN MARLETTE, his Wife v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and HERMAN L. JORDAN<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/A36031_09.pdf" target="main">RICHARD A. MARLETTE, SR. and MARLEEN MARLETTE, his Wife v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and HERMAN L. JORDAN (at 623)<br />APPEAL OF: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY(at 703)</a><br />No. 623 and 703 WDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 227</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/10/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Order entered on March 24, 2009<br />in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,<br />Civil Division, No. GD-06-015333</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">MUSMANNO, BENDER and BOWES, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>MUSMANNO, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2">Dissenting Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>BOWES, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Richard A. Marlette, Sr. (“Mr. Marlette”) and his wife, Marleen Marlette (“Mrs. Marlette”), (collectively, “the Marlettes”) appeal from the Order directing State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) to pay the Marlettes delay damages in the amount of $28,223.76 in the underlying uninsured motorist (“UM”) case. In its cross-appeal, State Farm challenges its obligation to pay delay damages in excess of its policy limits. After careful review, we vacate the judgment and remand for a re-calculation of delay damages.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-60790165517436193942010-12-10T12:42:00.000-08:002011-01-07T12:45:49.442-08:00IN RE: R.G. APPEAL OF: R.G.<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/A26044_10.pdf" target="main">IN RE: R.G.<br />APPEAL OF: R.G.</a><br />No. 394 EDA 2010 <i>2010 PA Super 228</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/10/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Order Entered January 5, 2010,<br /> Court of Common Pleas, Chester County,<br />Criminal Division, at No. 120 PMT 1978.</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">MUSMANNO, PANELLA and SHOGAN, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>SHOGAN, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Appellant, R.G., appeals from the order denying his request to have 50 P.S. §§ 7301(b)(1) and 7304 of the Mental Health Procedures Act (“MHPA”), 50 P.S. § 7101 et seq., declared unconstitutional. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-43803613909382119282010-12-08T13:15:00.000-08:002011-01-06T13:45:22.570-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KEVIN MICHAEL JACKSON<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/S63026_10.pdf" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KEVIN MICHAEL JACKSON</a><br />No. 274 and 337 WDA 2010 <i>2010 PA Super 226</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/8/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Order January 19, 2010,<br />Court of Common Pleas, Erie County,<br />Criminal Division at Nos. CR-0000011-09 - CP-25-CR-0000622-2009</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">MUSMANNO, DONOHUE and OTT, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>DONOHUE, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>This is an appeal from an order finding that the attachment of double jeopardy prohibited the criminal prosecution of Kevin Michael Jackson (“Jackson”) for certain offenses which had previously served as the basis for a finding of indirect criminal contempt of an order granted under the Protection from Abuse Act (“PFA order”). Following our review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-86778033522442676272010-12-07T13:12:00.000-08:002011-01-06T13:14:51.589-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GARY JAMAL JOHNSON<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/s77003_10.pdf" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GARY JAMAL JOHNSON</a><br />No. 2079 MDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 225</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/7/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Order entered November 12, 2009<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County<br />Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0001947-2009</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">PANELLA, DONOHUE, JJ. and McEWEN, P.J.E.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>PANELLA, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered on November 12, 2009, by the Honorable Michael T. Toole, Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, which granted the motion of Appellee, Gary Jamal Johnson, to dismiss the Criminal Information docketed at No. 1947 of 2009. After careful review, we are compelled to reverse.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-44812266872860864002010-12-06T13:08:00.000-08:002011-01-06T13:12:16.881-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DANIEL GRIFFITHS, III<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/S55017_10.PDF" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DANIEL GRIFFITHS, III</a><br />No. 40 MDA 2010 <i>2010 PA Super 223</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/6/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Order entered December 10, 2009<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County<br />Criminal, Nos. 1995-454 CP-35-CR-0000454-1995</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">BENDER, GANTMAN, AND MUNDY, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>GANTMAN, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Appellant, Daniel Griffiths III, appeals from the order entered in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, which found him in contempt for nonpayment of restitution. Appellant asks us to determine whether the court had continued authority to enforce its original restitution order and to find Appellant in contempt for failing to comply with that order. We hold that the court retained the authority to enforce its restitution order and to find Appellant in contempt for failing to comply with his restitution obligations. Accordingly, we affirm.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-62068988376878545292010-12-06T11:05:00.000-08:002011-01-06T13:08:23.433-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ABDIRISAK MOHAMUD<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/S63025_10.PDF" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ABDIRISAK MOHAMUD</a><br />No. 259 WDA 2010 <i>2010 PA Super 224</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/6/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 14, 2010,<br />Court of Common Pleas, Butler County,<br />Criminal Division at Nos. CR-0000117-09 - CP-10-CR-0000930-2009</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">MUSMANNO, DONOHUE and OTT, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>DONOHUE, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Appellant, Abdirisak Mohamud (“Mohamud”), appeals from the trial court’s January 14, 2010 sentence imposing 246 to 492 days of imprisonment, followed by two years of probation for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Mohamud challenges Pennsylvania’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (“the Act”), 35 P.S. § 780-101 - § 780-141, as violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution for lack of fair warning of the proscribed conduct for which he was convicted. After careful analysis, we affirm the judgment of sentence.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-11613706634966021212010-12-03T11:01:00.000-08:002011-01-06T11:05:20.133-08:00IN THE INTEREST OF: D.Y. APPEAL OF D.Y.<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/A16023_10.pdf" target="main">IN THE INTEREST OF: D.Y.<br />APPEAL OF D.Y.</a><br />No. 1300 EDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 222</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/3/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Order entered April 1, 2009,<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,<br />Family Court, Juvenile Division, at No. 0719-08-12</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">ALLEN, LAZARUS, and FREEDBERG, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>LAZARUS, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2">Dissenting Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>ALLEN, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>D.Y. appeals from the dispositional order adjudicating him delinquent for burglary, criminal trespass, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property and criminal mischief. On appeal, D.Y. claims that “the lower court erred in admitting hearsay information at [his] adjudicatory hearing, to wit, that the fingerprints on a “10 print card” were his fingerprints.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-67886289655012967122010-12-01T12:40:00.000-08:002011-01-05T13:51:08.714-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NICHOLAS RUFFIN<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/A26024_10.pdf" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NICHOLAS RUFFIN</a><br />No. 2198 EDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 220</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/1/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 25, 2009<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County<br />Criminal Division at No(s): CR-0000080-09, CP-09-CR-0002124-2009</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">MUSMANNO, PANELLA and SHOGAN, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>PANELLA, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Appellant, Nicholas Ruffin, appeals the judgment of sentence entered on June 25, 2009, by the Honorable Rea Behney Boylan, Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. After careful review, we affirm.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-83889235947506659052010-12-01T10:59:00.000-08:002011-01-06T11:01:54.530-08:00AUTOCHOICE UNLIMITED, INC. v. AVANGARD AUTO FINANCE, INC. d/b/a FRIEDMAN’S FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC d/b/a AFFM, INC., FRIEDMAN’S FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/s76037_10.pdf" target="main">AUTOCHOICE UNLIMITED, INC. v. AVANGARD AUTO FINANCE, INC. d/b/a FRIEDMAN’S FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC d/b/a AFFM, INC., FRIEDMAN’S FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC AND AFFM, INC.</a><br />No. 790 EDA 2010 <i>2010 PA Super 221</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 12/1/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Order entered February 4, 2010<br />in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division<br /> at No(s): December Term, 2008 No. 2387</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">STEVENS, DONOHUE, and MUNDY, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>MUNDY, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Appellant, Autochoice Unlimited, Inc., appeals from an order entered February 4, 2010, sustaining in part Appellees’ preliminary objections and dismissing Appellant’s complaint without prejudice. Specifically, the trial court sustained Appellees’ objection to forum in Philadelphia on the basis of a forum selection clause contained in a contract between Appellant and Appellee Avangard Auto Finance, Inc. (Avangard), designating Broward County, Florida, as sole venue to resolve disputes. Because we discern no error or abuse of discretion by the trial court, we affirm.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-67447287219279632492010-11-29T12:19:00.000-08:002011-01-05T12:40:04.674-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT STEPHEN KANE<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/A30037_10.pdf" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT STEPHEN KANE</a><br />No. 1833 MDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 218</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 11/29/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of April 21, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County,<br />Criminal Division, at Nos. CR-0000157-08 P-35-CR-0002392-2008</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">ALLEN, MUNDY and COLVILLE, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>COLVILLE, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed following Appellant’s convictions of attempted burglary, attempted criminal trespass, terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another person and criminal mischief. Appellant raises multiple issues for our review.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-5235238046564766352010-11-29T12:15:00.000-08:002011-01-05T12:19:21.418-08:00BERNADETTE E. SLUSSER and PNC BANK, NA, as Co-Executors of the ESTATE OF THOMAS A. SLUSSER, DECEASED, EARL R. SLUSSER, MATTHEW B. BAYZICK and THOMAS<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/A30038_10.pdf" target="main">BERNADETTE E. SLUSSER and PNC BANK, NA, as Co-Executors of the ESTATE OF THOMAS A. SLUSSER, DECEASED, EARL R. SLUSSER, MATTHEW B. BAYZICK and THOMAS J. SLUSSER v. LAPUTKA, BAYLESS, ECKER and COHN, P.C. and MARTIN D. COHN, ESQUIRE<br />APPEAL OF: MARTIN D. COHN, ESQUIRE (at 1727)<br />APPEAL OF: LAPUTKA, BAYLESS, ECKER & COHN, P.C.(at 1728)</a><br />No. 1727 and 1728 MDA 2008 <i>2010 PA Super 219</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 11/29/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of August 29, 2008,<br />in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County,<br />Civil Division, at No. 6741 C of 2000.</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">ALLEN, MUNDY and COLVILLE, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>COLVILLE, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>This matter presents the Court with consolidated appeals from a judgment entered against Appellants and in favor of Appellees. The parties also have filed a number of motions which we must resolve. We deny the parties’ motions, vacate the judgment and all of the orders entered by former Luzerne County Judge Mark A. Ciavarella (“Ciavarella”), and remand for a new trial.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-8159281031515278102010-11-29T11:11:00.000-08:002011-01-05T12:15:28.776-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DANIEL PATRICK CAULEY<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/S54036_10.pdf" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DANIEL PATRICK CAULEY</a><br />No. 270 WDA 2010 <i>2010 PA Super 217</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 11/29/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered January 26, 2010<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County<br />Criminal No(s).: CP-65-CR-0000856-2009; CR-0000014-09</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="">BOWES, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style=""><b>FITZGERALD, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Appellant, Daniel Patrick Cauley, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, following his conviction for driving under the influence, highest rate of alcohol. Appellant contends on appeal that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests. We hold that police officers may conduct sobriety tests after a citizen effectuates an encounter when the officer observes evidence of alcohol intoxication as a result of the encounter, and the officer observed the citizen driving a vehicle immediately prior to the encounter. Accordingly, we affirm.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-39507560460180801692010-11-23T12:34:00.000-08:002011-01-05T11:10:41.416-08:00PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. BLUESTREAM TECHNOLOGY, INC.<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/a13029_10.pdf" target="main">PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. BLUESTREAM TECHNOLOGY, INC.</a><br />No. 2862 EDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 215</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a <b><span style="color:#ff0000;">Petition for Reargument Filed 12/7/2010</span></b> Filed: 11/23/2010 </i></td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Order Dated September 10, 2009,<br />in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County,<br />Civil Division, at No. 0905368-31-1.</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., BOWES, J., and McEWEN, P.J.E.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>BOWES, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Bluestream Technology, Inc., appeals from the order entered on September 10, 2009, denying its petition to strike and/or open a confessed judgment and to dismiss or stay the proceedings. After careful review, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-56511535701471118502010-11-23T12:29:00.000-08:002010-12-28T12:34:18.237-08:00COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GEORGE M. DURHAM<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/S64029_10.pdf" target="main">COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GEORGE M. DURHAM</a><br />No. 422 WDA 2010 <i>2010 PA Super 216</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 11/23/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Order Entered January 22, 2010,<br />Court of Common Pleas, Beaver County,<br />Criminal Division, at No. CP-04-CR-0001860-2007.</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">PANELLA, SHOGAN and CLELAND, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>SHOGAN, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>Appellant, George M. Durham, appeals from the order denying his pro se motion for return of property. We affirm.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725292761438552781.post-12852827260886762542010-11-19T11:59:00.000-08:002010-12-28T12:29:38.783-08:00IN RE YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE APPEAL OF: YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE<table border="0"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/a27033_10.PDF" target="main">IN RE YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE<br /> APPEAL OF: YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE</a><br />No. 1717 MDA 2009 <i>2010 PA Super 214</i> Atlantic: <i>n/a</i> Filed: 11/19/2010 </td> </tr><tr><td width="10"><br /></td><td><small>Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 4, 2009,<br />In the Court of Common Pleas of York County<br />Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-MD00001461-2009</small></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Before: <b><span style="font-size:-1;">BENDER, GANTMAN, and FREEDBERG, JJ.</span></b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">Opinion by: <span style="font-size:-1;"><b>FREEDBERG, J.</b></span></td></tr><tr> </tr><tr><td colspan="2"><i>The York County District Attorney’s Office (“Commonwealth”) appeals from the Order entered August 4, 2009, finding that it committed contempt and imposing a $5,000.00 sanction. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/practice/caselaw.html">click here</a>The Clerkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14958590999952922397noreply@blogger.com0