Township of Lycoming v. Shannon

13 Citing cases

  1. Crook v. E. Fallowfield Twp.

    805 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Sep. 14, 2023)

    Id. at 2-3 (quoting Twp. of Lycoming v. Shannon, 780 A.2d 835, 839 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001)). The court also concluded that the Crooks "failed to prove they made a good-faith attempt at service after their initial attempt on January 27, 2021 before the [c]omplaint expired," explaining that the Crooks "merely speculate[d] as to why there was an initial delay in reinstatement and service[.]"

  2. McFadden v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1715 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 21, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    "Actual or constructive notice of the action" does not constitute proper service; rather, a defendant must be served in accordance with the applicable rules of civil procedure. See id.; see also Twp. of Lycoming v. Shannon, 780 A.2d 835, 838 (Pa. Commw. 2001) ("It is well established that the rules governing the service of process set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure must be strictly followed. Moreover, the validity of the service is not presumed; the return of service itself must demonstrate that the service was made in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure."

  3. Shuppe v. Shapiro

    1423 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 13, 2024)

    In Township of Lycoming v. Shannon, … 780 A.2d 835 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 2001), the Commonwealth Court ruled that a complaint that was never properly served was "dead" upon the expiration of thirty (30) days. This [c]ourt finds that appears to be the same case as the instant matter.

  4. Allegheny Cnty. Sportsmen's League v. City of Pittsburgh

    1810 C.D. 2019 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Mar. 3, 2023)

    Our review of a trial court's contempt order is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Commonwealth v. Lubisky, 88 A.3d 328, 332 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (citing Twp. of Lycoming v. Shannon, 780 A.2d 835, 838 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001)). We reject the League's suggestion that consideration of an appellant's constitutional rights as a part of the scope or standard of review regarding a contempt order is "consistent with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's holding in Leon E. Wintermyer, Inc. v. [Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Marlowe), 812 A.2d 478, 493 (Pa.] 2002)" (Newman, J., concurring).

  5. Blewitt v. Doe

    247 A.3d 1180 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2021)

    See Pa.R.C.P. No. 405(e). In Township of Lycoming v. Shannon , 780 A.2d 835 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), this Court stated: "Unless a party applies to a court for an extension of time in which to serve original process, or unless the parties agree to waive the [30]-day time restriction, a writ or complaint will be ‘dead’ at the expiration of 30 days." Id . at 839.

  6. Chester Cnty. Outdoor, LLC v. Westtown Twp.

    162 A.3d 1180 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    We review a trial court's acceptance or rejection of a settlement proposal for abuse of discretion. BPG Real Estate Investors–Straw Party II, L.P. v. Board of Supervisors of Newtown Township, 990 A.2d 140, 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Our review of a trial court's contempt order is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. Office of Attorney General v. Lubisky, 88 A.3d 328, 332 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (citing Township of Lycoming v. Shannon, 780 A.2d 835, 838 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) ).III.

  7. In re Humane Soc'y of the Harrisburg Area, Inc.

    92 A.3d 1264 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Our review of the trial court's order is limited to determining whether the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. Twp. of Lycoming v. Shannon, 780 A.2d 835, 838 n. 1 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). When the trial court appointed Sandstrom in 2004, Section 4(d) of the former Humane Society Police Officer Enforcement Act provided:

  8. Commonwealth v. Lubisky

    88 A.3d 328 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2014)   Cited 11 times

    “This Court's scope of review of the trial court's contempt order is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Township of Lycoming v. Shannon, 780 A.2d 835, 838 n. 1 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). The decision to grant or deny a petition to open a default judgment is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a “manifest abuse of discretion.”

  9. Serrino v. Cnty. of Luzerne Tax Claim Bureau

    No. 2014 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Aug. 1, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    "[T]he validity of the service is not presumed; the return of service itself must demonstrate that the service was made in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure." Township of Lycoming v. Shannon, 780 A.2d 835, 838 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). Thus, it is essential that the return of service contain all of the necessary information lest it be rendered fatally defective.

  10. Commonwealth v. Reichenbach

    41 A.3d 168 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2012)

    Our scope of review of the trial court's contempt order is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Township of Lycoming v. Shannon, 780 A.2d 835, 838 n. 1 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). Reichenbach first argues that the trial court erred in sustaining the contempt petition because the Commonwealth failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish that Reichenbach violated the Consent Petition. According to Reichenbach: he included the required language concerning a customer's right to rescission in the contracts; he appended the required Notice of Cancellation forms to the contracts; he orally advised the customers of their rescission rights; and he performed the vast majority of the contract work but was prevented from completing the work by the actions of the customers.