Summary
holding that the privilege against self-incrimination prevents an individual from providing evidence which may lead to his own prosecution and may be invoked by an individual who has a reasonable basis for believing his testimony will be incriminatory
Summary of this case from Koehler v. WetzelOpinion
Argued March 10, 1989.
Decided January 17, 1990.
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Allegheny County, No. CC 8504300A, Horgos, J.
Robert E. Colville, Dist. Atty., Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy Dist. Atty., Scott A. Bradley, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Robert M. Barrett, Pittsburgh, (Court-Appointed), for appellee.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.
OPINION
Appellee, Robert McGrogan, was convicted of two counts of criminal solicitation, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 902(a). He appealed this conviction to the Superior Court, which reversed the trial court and ordered a new trial, 367 Pa. Super. 394, 532 A.2d 1203. This appeal by the Commonwealth followed, and allocatur was granted to address the issue of the propriety of the Superior Court's disposition of this matter. For the following reasons, we now affirm the order of the Superior Court.
In April, 1974, the Pittsburgh police arrested Mary and Donna Hoegrel, mother and daughter, for possession and sale of a controlled substance. Mary Hoegrel agreed to cooperate with police efforts to arrest Robert McGrogan, her supplier, and at their request telephoned McGrogan to arrange delivery of a quantity of a controlled substance. The police were able to effectuate the arrest of McGrogan as he arrived at Hoegrel's home. While awaiting trial on the drug charges, McGrogan was committed to the Allegheny County jail where the Commonwealth charges that he offered money and drugs to Roland Steele if, in return, Steele would kill the Hoegrels. As a result, McGrogan was arrested and subsequently convicted of criminal solicitation for his activity in connection with the alleged plan to kill the Hoegrels. This conviction is the subject of the instant appeal.
The present record does not reveal the disposition of those charges.
The evidence adduced at trial conflicted as to whether McGrogan or Steele had conceived the plot to murder the Hoegrels. The testimony of a prison inmate of McGrogan's and that of the Hoegrels supported the Commonwealth's theory that McGrogan had approached Steele with the proposition. An investigating officer then produced two slips of paper, given to him by Steele, upon which were written the names, address, and telephone number of the Hoegrels.
At that point, the Commonwealth announced its intention to read into evidence the preliminary hearing testimony of Roland Steele. This was done because, immediately before trial, the prosecutor informed the trial court that Steele would be unavailable to testify because he intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment. The following exchange took place in camera:
THE COURT: You heard the representation of the Commonwealth attorney, Mr. Awesh, who said he spoke to your attorney, and your attorney had indicated that you would, if called to be a witness for the Commonwealth in this case, that you would take the fifth amendment. Is that correct?
MR. STEELE: Sure.
THE COURT: Is there any question that you would like to ask Mr. Steele?
MR. AWESH: No. I believe that's all.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Steele.
(N.T. 10/8/85, p. 4)
Defense counsel objected to the admission of the preliminary hearing testimony of Roland Steele in the trial of this matter, stating:
I'm going to object to [the prosecutor's] reading [the testimony] for lots of reasons. First of all, I believe that it denies the Defendant the right to confrontation in terms of the witnesses in the proceedings.
I'm denied the opportunity to cross-examine the man. The jury is denied an opportunity to observe his demeanor and to find out, you know, anything about his background, and for those reasons, I would object.
The Commonwealth notified the trial court of Steele's wish to invoke the Fifth Amendment on the first day of trial before the jury was empanelled. (N.T. 10/8/85 p. 4) The Commonwealth sought to introduce the transcript on the second day of trial, at which point defense counsel objected. (N.T. 10/9/85, p. 57)
Over objection, the trial court admitted the transcript. Steele's testimony at the preliminary hearing revealed that McGrogan had solicited Steele at least four times to kill the Hoegrels during Steele's stay at the prison between May 18, 1984, and May 22, 1984. Further, the transcript revealed McGrogan offered Steele drugs and increasing amounts of money to murder the witnesses. McGrogan supplied Steele with descriptions of the house and the intended victims. This testimony was corroborated by pieces of paper bearing descriptions of the house and intended victims; the papers were surrendered by Steele to the investigating officer. The transcript further indicated that he had repeatedly declined McGrogan's propositions.
Three inmates testified during the defense that Steele had offered his "services" to McGrogan, and that McGrogan mistrusted Steele and rejected his overtures. McGrogan himself testified in support of the latter version of events, stressing that he was never aware that the Hoegrels intended to testify against him.
The Commonwealth presents three issues for our review. The Commonwealth first alleges that the Superior Court erred in addressing the issue of whether Steele was properly allowed to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege. According to the Commonwealth, this issue was waived by the defendant and should not have been reached by the Superior Court. The Commonwealth cites Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 462 Pa. 43, 337 A.2d 873 (1975), in support of its contention that defense counsel's general objection at trial was insufficient to preserve the more specific allegation that there was no factual basis to support Steele's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege.
See supra at p. 926.
Two issues are presented in this argument: first, whether the failure of the defense to object to the invocation of the privilege constituted a waiver of an objection to the admissibility of the preliminary hearing transcript; and second, whether the ruling permitting the invocation of the privilege by Steele was correct. Turning to the waiver question, we find it to be convoluted and meritless. The waiver argument is fallacious because it rests upon the mistaken premise that appellee herein had the responsibility of challenging the allowance of the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege by Steele. The appellee, as the defendant in the trial below, did not seek to call Mr. Steele as a witness. The party seeking to use the evidence to be supplied by Mr. Steele was the Commonwealth. It is the responsibility of the party who is offering the witness to respond to any objection that would prevent that witness' testimony. It should be self-evident that the party against whom the evidence is sought to be offered should not be expected to support its introduction.
Moreover, the Commonwealth's argument fails to perceive the distinction between the decision upholding Mr. Steele's right to not be compelled to testify and the subsequent ruling admitting the earlier testimony of Mr. Steele. The former ruling was not adverse to appellee's position, and thus appellee had no obligation to object. The subsequent ruling was adverse to Mr. McGrogan and a prompt objection was made. It is also to be noted that the Commonwealth did not object to the initial ruling, although they should have realized the basis for their subsequent request would depend upon the sufficiency of the record made in support of the first ruling. The fact that the original error provided the grounds for appellee's subsequent argument does not eradicate the Commonwealth's dereliction in failing to challenge the basis upon which the trial court premised its ruling sustaining the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege.
The concept of waiver in this context must be predicated upon an underlying premise that a party has failed, through inaction or inattentiveness, to preserve an objection that would be favorable to that party. In this instance there was no obligation upon the defense, when the court initially ruled upon the propriety of the invocation of the privilege, to attempt to correct an erroneous judgment where the result of that ruling would inure to the benefit of the defendant. When the Commonwealth proceeded to rely upon the prior ruling to the detriment of the defense, it was then appropriate for the defense to challenge its validity. To rule otherwise would completely ignore the adversarial nature of a trial.
We turn now to a consideration of whether the trial court properly admitted the transcript of Mr. Steele's testimony in the prior proceeding. The answer to this question hinges upon whether the trial court was correct in determining that the Fifth Amendment privilege was properly invoked. Under both our federal and state constitutions, an accused in a criminal trial has a right to confront witnesses bearing evidence against him. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965); Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 15 S.Ct. 337, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895); Commonwealth v. Russo, 388 Pa. 462, 131 A.2d 83 (1957); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 348 Pa. 349, 35 A.2d 312 (1944); Commonwealth v. Cronin, 336 Pa. 469, 9 A.2d 408 (1940). However, it has been firmly established that where a witness properly invoked his or her Fifth Amendment privilege, testimony of that witness in an earlier proceeding may be used, under proper circumstances, in a subsequent proceeding without offending the right of confrontation. California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970); In re Corrugated Container Anti-Trust Litigation, 661 F.2d 1145 (7th Cir. 1981), aff'd Pillsbury v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608, 74 L.Ed.2d 430 (1981); United States v. Zurosky, 614 F.2d 779 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 967, 100 S.Ct. 2945, 64 L.Ed.2d 826 (1980); Commonwealth v. Sandutch, 498 Pa. 536, 449 A.2d 566 (1982); Lepley v. Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas, 481 Pa. 565, 393 A.2d 306 (1978); Commonwealth v. Duncan, 473 Pa. 62, 373 A.2d 1051 (1976). The offsetting considerations are the witness' right against self-incrimination, United States v. Thornton, 733 F.2d 121, 236 U.S.App.D.C. 29 (1984); United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1980); United States, ex rel. Tatman v. Anderson, 391 F. Supp. 68 (D.C.Del. 1975), and the fact that the prior testimony was elicited under circumstances which bear the indicia of reliability. Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 92 S.Ct. 2308, 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972); Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); Mattox v. United States, supra. The first consideration is implicated in the instant appeal.
Crucial to a finding that confrontation has not been denied by the admission of the prior testimony of a witness, rather than the witness himself, is a determination that the unavailability of the witness properly has been determined. Where a witness bases his unavailability upon a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege, the trial court must ascertain whether the witness' concern with self-incrimination is legitimate. As stated in Commonwealth v. Carrera, 424 Pa. 551, 553-4, 227 A.2d 627, 629 (1967):
When an individual . . . is called to testify . . . in a judicial proceeding, he or she is not exonerated from answering questions merely upon the declaration that in so doing it would be self-incriminating. It is always for the court to judge if the silence is justified, and an illusory claim should be rejected.
See also, Commonwealth v. Allen, 501 Pa. 525, 462 A.2d 624 (1983); Commonwealth v. Rolon, 486 Pa. 573, 406 A.2d 1039 (1979); Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 472 Pa. 435, 372 A.2d 771 (1977).
In this case, the record reveals that the witness' claim for immunity was based solely upon the bald assertion that he wished to invoke the privilege. The Commonwealth did not challenge the position nor did it attempt to place upon the record any facts to demonstrate that the evidence intended to be elicited would incriminate this witness. To the contrary, the statement of Steele which was admitted, over objection, reflects that Steele was not involved in any wrong doing in this matter as demonstrated by the following excerpts:
A. Well, once I got into my cell, first of all, I met an inmate by the name of Mr. — I forget his name. He was an officer. But I went into my cell, and I was unpacking my belongings, and this is when Mr. McGrogan came into my cell and he asked me my name, and I told him.
He said, I've heard of you, some things about you.
MR. AWESH: At that point, the Court said: Mr. Steele, talk into the mike.
A. He said, I've heard some things about you. I said, what are you talking about, and then he said I was supposed to have been a hit man or something. Somebody was supposedly allegedly told him that.
Q. Was that what you — excuse me. Is that what he told you, Mr. Steele?
A. Yes. That I was supposed to be a hit man or something like that, and proceeded to tell him — proceeded to tell him that I wasn't, he had me mixed up with somebody else, in which was a man by the name of Gregory Steele.
Q. Were you never [sic] a hit man?
A. Never.
(N.T. 10/9/85, p. 62-63.)
. . . .
A. I was asked to eliminate two ladies.
Q. What does eliminate mean?
A. To kill them, to get rid of them.
Q. Tell us specifically as you can what it was that Mr. McGrogan said to you.
A. He had said that it was two ladies that was testifying against him on the charges of dope. They were allegedly going to tell on him, and he had asked me if I basically was interested in taking the contract, and I proceeded to tell him I don't do things like that, and I'm not about that.
He said, well, I know you are, and just think about it. So I asked him very nastily to leave, and he left, and this is when Mr. Roy Layne entered my cell.
Q. What did you do, Mr. Steele? Did you have anymore contact with the Defendant, Robert McGrogan, after that?
A. Yes. He came back to my cell again.
Q. When?
A. Maybe half an hour later and talked, and I told him very impolitely to leave me alone. I said, leave me alone, man. Because I thought he was trying to set me up or something. And he left, but he proceeded to persist in asking me and keep asking me.Id. at 64.
. . . .
Q. How many times would you say he continued to do that?
A. About five, because I was supposed to leave that Monday. I did come in on Friday. I'm sorry. I was going to leave that Monday to go back to Washington County.
Q. Did you ever tell him that you were supposed to go back to Washington County?
A. No. After he told me he was serious about this, and I guess I was playing along with him, trying to get all the information I can, because I was going to turn it over to the police. I told him I was leaving Monday to go to the street, and he believed me on that. So he was giving me more information about the ladies inside of the house and to make some phone calls.Id. at 65.
Moreover, the record reflects that Steele was the individual who, in fact, warned the Hoegrels of McGrogan's intention towards them. It is clear that nothing in Mr. Steele's statement suggested his complicity with McGrogan in the crimes charged.
The Commonwealth's final argument is that this matter should be remanded for the development of a record establishing the predicate for Steele's claim of the Fifth Amendment privilege, rather than for a new trial. Because of the internal inconsistency of the assertion of the privilege and the content of the prior testimony, this request would be an act of futility.
The instant circumstances are to be distinguished from the case in which a witness has not testified, so that the content of his testimony is unknown. In such an instance it is perfectly reasonable to consider the effect of extrinsic evidence upon the potential witness' fear that his own testimony will be incriminatory. Commonwealth v. Allen, supra; Commonwealth v. Hawthorne, 428 Pa. 260, 236 A.2d 519 (1968). Where other evidence tends to implicate the witness in criminal activity, the witness may have justification for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege to prevent being harmed by his own words.
Where, however, the substance of the witness' testimony is already known to absolve him of any wrongdoing, he cannot support his desire to invoke the privilege by relying upon the fact that other evidence at trial may cast suspicion upon him. By definition, the privilege against self-incrimination prevents an individual from providing evidence which may lead to his own prosecution. Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). An individual who wishes to invoke this privilege must have a reasonable basis for believing his testimony will be incriminatory. Commonwealth v. Allen, supra; Commonwealth v. Rolon, supra; Commonwealth v. Rodgers, supra; Commonwealth v. Carrera, supra. In the instant case Mr. Steele's insistence that his testimony at trial would run afoul of his Fifth Amendment rights can have but one reasonable basis: that his earlier self-exculpating statement was false, and that the true statement Steele would give at trial would reflect greater involvement on his part. Thus, if we are to accept the Commonwealth's position, we also must assume the unreliability of the preliminary hearing transcript of Steele's testimony, an assumption which would further undermine the fact-finding process conducted at the instant trial. We are content, however, to reject the Commonwealth's argument and to find that Steele's unavailability has not been properly proven. The admission of his preliminary hearing testimony, therefore, was error.
We also note that the admission of Steele's preliminary hearing testimony violated state evidentiary law governing the admissibility of former testimony, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5917, for the same reasons. That section provides, in pertinent part:
Whenever any person has been examined as a witness, either for the Commonwealth or for the defense, in any criminal proceeding conducted in or before a court of record, and the defendant has been present and has had an opportunity to examine or cross-examine, if such witness afterwards . . . becomes incompetent to testify for any legally sufficient reason properly proven, notes of his examination shall be competent evidence upon a subsequent trial of the same criminal issue. (Emphasis added.)
Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586 § 2, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5917.
Because the parties have not raised this issue, however, it is waived and its determination is not necessary to our disposition of this matter.
Having determined that the trial court indeed erred in admitting the transcript of this witness' former testimony, we now address the Commonwealth's remaining contention that such error was harmless. In this regard, the Commonwealth argued to the Superior Court that the standard pronounced by the United States Supreme Court in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986), was relevant to a determination of the instant case. The Van Arsdall standard analyzed the relationship between the Confrontation Clause and the harmless error doctrine recognized that a violation of the Confrontation Clause could indeed constitute harmless error. We agree that such a violation could be harmless error in a given factual situation. We disagree that such is the case in the instant matter.
In Van Arsdall the United States Supreme Court set forth the following standard for making the determination as to whether the error is harmless:
[T]he constitutionally improper denial of a defendant's opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, like other Confrontation Clause errors, is subject to . . . harmless-error analysis. The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts. These factors include the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case.
Id. at 684, 106 S.Ct. at 1438. The Commonwealth seizes upon the words "these factors include" to justify its position that, in this situation, we should assess whether the error was harmless by using factors other than those set forth in Van Arsdall. It argues that the factors established in Van Arsdall are inapposite in the instant case because the type of error which occurred in this case is different from the type of error in Van Arsdall. This position is inexplicable in view of the United States Supreme Court's express language:
[T]he constitutionally improper denial of a defendant's opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, like other Confrontation Clause errors, is subject to . . . harmless-error analysis. (Emphasis added.)Id. at 684, 106 S.Ct. at 1438.
The instant issue implicates a Confrontation Clause question. Moreover, nowhere in the Commonwealth's brief does it suggest what the "other factors" should be that distinguish the error here raised.
The Commonwealth contends:
In the instant case the issue does not concern the reliability of the testimony admitted but rather relates to the technical evidentiary rules and procedures upon which the testimony was admitted. Clearly these rules and procedures are important and should be complied with. Nevertheless, in examining the impact of error resulting from noncompliance the focus should not be directed toward the indicia of reliability of the witness' testimony but rather toward whether the underlying error itself contributed to respondent's conviction. In regard to the nature of the error, the present case is clearly distinguishable in its facts from those of Van Arsdall, supra, and Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). In those cases improper testimony concerning matters to be resolved by the fact finder, including facts in issue and credibility of witnesses, was admitted yet found to be harmless. In the instant case the error implicated evidentiary matters that would not be submitted to the fact finder for determination. (Emphasis supplied.)
See Appellant's brief at p. 15.
Disingenuously, the Commonwealth would have us create a fictitious distinction between the ruling and the impact of that ruling upon the outcome of the trial. The sophistry of such a position is readily apparent. The thrust of Van Arsdall's test in determining harmless error is to ascertain the impact of error upon the verdict. Obviously, the impact of the erroneously admitted evidence must be evaluated within the context of the prosecution's entire case when determining its effect upon the ultimate verdict.
This aspect of Van Arsdall is in accordance with the harmless error doctrine long established in this Commonwealth. As this Court noted in Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391, 412-13, 383 A.2d 155 (1978):
[A]n error may be harmless where the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error is so insignificant by comparison that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that error could not have contributed to the verdict. (citations omitted). Under this approach, a reviewing court first determines whether the untainted evidence, considered independently of the tainted evidence, overwhelmingly establishes the defendant's guilt. If 'honest, fair-minded jurors might very well have brought in not guilty verdicts,' an error cannot be harmless on the basis of overwhelming evidence. (Citations omitted.)
See also, Commonwealth v. Elmore, 508 Pa. 81, 494 A.2d 1050 (1985); Commonwealth v. Mehmeti, 501 Pa. 589, 462 A.2d 657 (1983).
The focus of this approach requires a finding that Mr. Steele's former testimony was a significant factor in the jury's arrival at a guilty verdict. Without the testimony, the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction. Roland Steele was the only witness who could testify as to the crimes with which McGrogan was charged. The inmates who claimed to have heard Steele's conversations with McGrogan contradicted Steele's version of events; thus, without Steele's testimony, there was no evidence to suggest McGrogan's guilt. Under these circumstances, the error cannot be deemed harmless.
Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court is affirmed, and a new trial is ordered.
McDERMOTT, J., files a dissenting opinion.
If, as the majority suggests, the only reason Mr. Steele would not testify is that the truth would inculpate him, the matter should end here and now, as he is the only witness that inculpates the appellee. I would remand the case to determine if that is his position, or whether there are other sufficient reasons that would make him legally privileged. Allocatur Disposition Lower Court Docket and Appeal Docket or Title Date Number Docket Citation -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arenth v. Cerminara 9/7/89 178 W.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 644, (1989) 559 A.2d 959
Benner v. Kobrin ... 8/14/89 320 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 643, (1989) 560 A.2d 822
Bobbert v. Montgomery Builders Supply, Inc. ............. 9/13/89 138 W.D. Denied No. 1654 (1989) Pittsburgh 1987
Bobbert v. Montgomery Builders Supply .. 9/13/89 139 W.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 658, (1989) 560 A.2d 235
Bryn Mawr Hosp., Petition of ...... 9/22/89 1174 E.D. Granted 379 Pa. Super. 626, (1988) (107 E.D. 550 A.2d 1320 1989)
Com. v. Alexander .. 8/30/89 296 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 644, (1989) 560 A.2d 823
Com. v. Andrews .... 9/7/89 353 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 645, (1989) 560 A.2d 823
Com. v. Barkelbaugh 9/22/89 3 W.D. Granted 386 Pa. Super. 644, (1989) (84 W.D. 555 A.2d 936 1989)
Com. v. Bazier ..... 9/7/89 279 W.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 645, (1989) 555 A.2d 242
Com. v. Beverly .... 8/24/89 920 E.D. Denied 377 Pa. Super. 438, (1988) 547 A.2d 766
Com. v. Billa ...... 8/23/89 250 E.D. Denied 382 Pa. Super. 638, (1989) 549 A.2d 1336
Com. v. Brown ...... 9/14/89 081 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 817
Com. v. Brown ...... 9/14/89 250 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 817
Com. v. Carter ..... 9/18/89 509 W.D. Denied 377 Pa. Super. 93, (1988) 546 A.2d 1173
Com. v. Cook ....... 8/10/89 225 E.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 660, (1989) 560 A.2d 237
Com. v. Dill ....... 8/23/89 281 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 647, (1989) 560 A.2d 825
Com. v. Fenning .... 8/23/89 322 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 647, (1989) 560 A.2d 825
Com. v. Gaines ..... 4/7/89 942 E.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 663, (1988) 550 A.2d 249
Com. v. Glass ...... 9/1/89 373 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 818
Com. v. Ilgenfritz 9/14/89 092 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 819
Com. v. Le ......... 8/7/89 140 E.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 649, (1989) 559 A.2d 963
Com. v. Leitzel .... 9/22/89 11 M.D. Denied 386 Pa. Super. 649, (1989) 555 A.2d 940
Com. v. Lichina .... 9/14/89 135 W.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 649, (1989) 559 A.2d 963
Com. v. Logan ...... 8/24/89 1093 E.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 642, (1988) 551 A.2d 595
Com. v. Lucas ...... 8/16/89 998 E.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 642, (1988) 551 A.2d 595
Com. v. Mays ....... 8/23/89 1171 E.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 653, (1988) 555 A.2d 247
Com. v. Mercer ..... 9/7/89 302 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 651, (1989) 560 A.2d 828
Com. v. Parks ...... 9/13/89 264 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 821
Com. v. Rapczak .... 9/5/89 676 W.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 655, (1988) 555 A.2d 248
Com. v. Tizer ...... 9/19/89 74 E.D. Granted 386 Pa. Super. 654, (1989) (106 E.D. 555 A.2d 944 1989)
Com. v. Todaro ..... 9/13/89 642 W.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 657, (1988) 555 A.2d 250
Com. v. Tyler ...... 9/13/89 055 M.D. Denied 382 Pa. Super. 384, (1989) 555 A.2d 232
Com. v. Van Allen .. 8/30/89 346 E.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 666, (1989) 560 A.2d 241
Com. v. Whetstine .. 9/13/89 189 W.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 652, (1989) 559 A.2d 966
Crossan By Crossan v. Crescent Cab Co. .. 9/1/89 938 E.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 670, (1988) 550 A.2d 254
Duggan v. Waller ... 9/1/89 1017 E.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 647, (1988) 551 A.2d 599
Eastview Union Cemetery, Petition of ............... 9/14/89 266 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 560 A.2d 832
Hale v. Feingold ... 9/5/89 1126 E.D. Denied No. 337 M.D. No. (1988) 15
Joseph D. Shein, P.C. v. Myers ......... 8/23/89 265 E.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 673, (1989) 560 A.2d 246
Key Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Louis John, Inc. ....... 9/5/89 1143 E.D. Denied 379 Pa. Super. 226, (1988) 549 A.2d 988
Mathis v. Philadelphia Elec. Co. ........ 8/22/89 235 E.D. Denied 381 Pa. Super. 466, (1989) 554 A.2d 96
Montgomery Builders Supply Inc., Petition of ...... 9/13/89 139 W.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 658, (1989) 560 A.2d 235
Montgomery Builders Supply, Inc. v. Bobbert .......... 9/13/89 138 W.D. Denied No. 1654 (1989) Pittsburgh 1987
Montgomery Builders Supply v. Bobbert 9/13/89 139 W.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 658, (1989) 560 A.2d 235
Morosini, Estate of 9/14/89 266 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 560 A.2d 832
110 Federal Street Associates v. Penn Micro Computer Systems, Inc. .... 9/6/89 668 W.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 650, (1988) 551 A.2d 600
110 Federal Street Associates v. Reynell .......... 9/6/89 668 W.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 650, (1988) 551 A.2d 600
Peace, In re ....... 8/29/89 1075 E.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 649, (1988) 551 A.2d 599
Peace, Petition of 8/29/89 1075 E.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 649, (1988) 551 A.2d 599
Penn Piping, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America .... 9/21/89 211 W.D. Granted 382 Pa. Super. 19, (1989) (82 W.D. 554 A.2d 925 1989)
Philadelphia Elec. Co., Petition of 8/22/89 235 E.D. Denied 381 Pa. Super. 466, (1989) 554 A.2d 96
Polito v. Polito ... 9/14/89 202 W.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 659, (1989) 560 A.2d 834
Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp. ............ 9/22/89 1174 E.D. Granted 379 Pa. Super. 626, (1988) (107 E.D. 550 A.2d 1320 1989)
Sheehan v. Cincinnati Shaper Co. ....... 9/13/89 188 W.D. Denied 382 Pa. Super. 579, (1989) 555 A.2d 1352
Tackett v. Kokowski ......... 9/5/89 624 W.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 651, (1988) 551 A.2d 601
Turnage v. Atuahene ......... 9/6/89 348 E.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 674, (1989) 560 A.2d 246
White v. White ............ 9/25/89 097 M.D. Denied 382 Pa. Super. 478, (1989) 555 A.2d 1299
Appeal from the Commonwealth Court
Allocatur Disposition Lower Court Docket and Appeal Docket or Title Date Number Docket Citation — --- ---- --------- ----------- -----------
Board of Directors of St. Clair Area School Dist. v. Commissioners of Schylkill County 8/23/89 23 E.D. Denied 553 A.2d 538 (1989)
Crankshaw v. W.C.A.B. (County of Allegheny) .... 9/18/89 586 W.D. Denied 120 Pa.Cmwlth. (1988) 148, 548 A.2d 368
Crowder v. W.C.A.B. (Oscar Mayer Foods Corp.) ........... 9/7/89 48 E.D. Denied No. 173 C.D. 1988 (1989)
Emerald Mines Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (Coughanour) ..... 9/18/89 566 W.D. Denied No. 2077 C.D. 1988 (1988)
Frei v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review ........... 9/8/89 75 E.D. Denied 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 270, 551 A.2d 669
Gilius v. Bd. of Supv. of Fairview Twp. ............. 9/13/89 014 M.D. Denied 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 371, 552 A.2d 327
Hitchens v. WCAP (Ponderosa, Inc.) ............ 9/14/89 026 M.D. Denied No. 2934 C.D. 1987 (1989)
Man v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Public Educ. ............ 9/13/89 175 W.D. Denied No. 2190, 2289 (1989) C.D. 1987
Mihalaki v. Com. Dept. of Transp. 9/21/89 143 W.D. Granted 553 A.2d 1042 (1989) (83 W.D. 1989)
Oscar Mayer Foods Corp., Petition of ............... 9/7/89 48 E.D. Denied No. 173 C.D. 1988 (1989)
Palyok v. Borough of West Mifflin ..... 9/19/89 34 W.D. Granted 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) (81 W.D. 25, 1989) 551 A.2d 622
Sciaretta v. WCAB .. 9/14/89 187 W.D. Denied No. 1206 C.D. 1988 (1989)
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA DISPOSITIONS OF PETITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL 565 A.2d 444-447 Appeal from the Superior Court
Allocatur Disposition Lower Court Docket and Appeal Docket or Title Date Number Docket Citation — --- ---- --------- ----------- -----------
Berger v. Schwartz 10/2/89 270 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 827
Bruneshefski, Petition of ...... 9/1/89 412 E.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 670, (1989) 560 A.2d 244
Com. v. Ashby ...... 9/26/89 252 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 816
Com. v. Bryson ..... 8/30/89 111 E.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 646, (1989) 559 A.2d 960
Com. v. Burns ...... 8/22/89 282 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 653, (1989) 560 A.2d 830
Com. v. Caldwell ... 8/22/89 392 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 646, (1989) 560 A.2d 824
Com. v. Clark ...... 9/18/89 375 W.D. Denied 374 Pa. Super. 308, (1988) 542 A.2d 1036
Com. v. Cooper ...... 9/13/89 378 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 646, (1989) 560 A.2d 824
Com. v. Dennis ..... 10/2/89 317 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 189
Com. v. Francis .... 10/2/89 134 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 189
Com. v. Francis .... 10/2/89 141 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 189
Com. v. Gnecco ..... 9/1/89 1146 E.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 649, (1988) 555 A.2d 244
Com. v. Hicks ...... 9/1/89 921 E.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 664, (1988) 550 A.2d 249
Com. v. Hoke ....... 8/30/89 91 E.D. Denied 381 Pa. Super. 70, (1989) 552 A.2d 1099
Com. v. Hutchens ... 9/13/89 342 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 649, (1989) 560 A.2d 826
Com. v. Kelly ...... 10/2/89 118 M.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 649, (1989) 560 A.2d 827
Com. v. Mason ...... 9/26/89 22 W.D. Denied 386 Pa. Super. 650, (1989) 555 A.2d 940
Com. v. Moto ....... 9/1/89 347 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 651, (1989) 560 A.2d 828
Com. v. Munns ...... 10/2/89 113 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 821
Com. v. Nara ....... 9/21/89 196 W.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 651, (1989) 560 A.2d 828
Com. v. Northington ..... 8/23/89 311 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 651, (1989) 560 A.2d 829
Mr. Justice McDermott did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Mr. Justice McDermott did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Com. v. Rohm ....... 9/19/89 240 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 822
Com. v. Ross ....... 9/22/89 658 W.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 655, (1988) 555 A.2d 249
Com. v. Slaughter .. 10/11/89 356 W.D. Granted ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) (87 W.D. 561 A.2d 822 1989)
Com. v. Souders .... 10/11/89 246 M.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 668, (1988) 550 A.2d 252
Com. v. Tomasek .... 9/25/89 299 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 195
Com. v. Waleski .... 9/21/89 62 W.D. Denied 386 Pa. Super. 655, (1989) 555 A.2d 944
Com. v. Wilk ....... 10/2/89 319 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 196
Dawson v. Fowler ... 10/2/89 087 M.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 329, (1989) 558 A.2d 565
Frederick v. American Hardware Supply Co. .............. 10/2/89 274 W.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 72, (1989) 557 A.2d 779
Gubser v. Trellis .. 10/2/89 540 W.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 671, (1988) 550 A.2d 254
Hudak, Petition of 10/2/89 272 W.D. Denied Nos. 243 244 (1989) Pittsburgh 1988
Hudak v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. .............. 10/2/89 272 W.D. Denied Nos. 243 244 (1989) Pittsburgh 1988
K.B., In re ........ 9/1/89 412 E.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 670, (1989) 560 A.2d 244
Lasso, Petition of 9/19/89 372 E.D. Denied 382 Pa. Super. 487, (1989) 555 A.2d 1304
McCracken v. Reddy 10/11/89 251 M.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 672, (1988) 550 A.2d 255
Mathis v. Philadelphia Elec. Co. ........ 8/22/89 232 E.D. Denied 381 Pa. Super. 466, (1989) 554 A.2d 96
Myers v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. ... 10/2/89 199 W.D. Granted 389 Pa. Super. 658, (1989) (85 W.D. 560 A.2d 834 1989)
Neff v. Lasso ...... 9/19/89 372 E.D. Denied 382 Pa. Super. 487, (1989) 555 A.2d 1304
PHK-P, Inc. v. United Food Commercial Workers Union, Local 23 .. 9/21/89 197 W.D. Denied 381 Pa. Super. 544, (1989) 554 A.2d 519
Rosa v. Wonderly ... 9/7/89 371 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 659, (1989) 560 A.2d 834
Shields v. Hudak ... 10/2/89 272 W.D. Denied Nos. 243 244 (1989) Pittsburgh 1988
Appeal from the Commonwealth Court
Allocatur Disposition Lower Court Docket and Appeal Docket or Title Date Number Docket Citation — --- ---- --------- ----------- -----------
Ackerman v. Com., Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole ........... 9/22/89 154 W.D. Denied No. 2920 C.D. 1986 (1988)
Antolik, Matter of 9/13/89 184 W.D. Denied 555 A.2d 273 (1989)
Babcock Wilcox Co. v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review ........... 10/2/89 564 W.D. Denied 119 Pa.Cmwlth. (1988) 566, 547 A.2d 850
Brown v. W.C.A.B ... 10/11/89 271 M.D. Denied No. 2468 C.D. (1988) 1986
Buchlmayer v. W.C.A.B. (Braun Baking Co.) ...... 9/25/89 225 W.D. Denied No. 1684 C.D. (1989) 1988
Buterbaugh v. W.C.A.B. (Buterbaugh Const. Co.) ...... 10/3/89 254 W.D. Denied No. 585 C.D. 1988 (1989)
Buterbaugh Const. Co., Petition of 10/3/89 254 W.D. Denied No. 585 C.D. 1988 (1989)
City of Pittsburgh, Petition of ...... 9/19/89 182 W.D. Denied 555 A.2d 1357 (1989)
City of Pittsburgh Com'n on Human Relations v. University of Pittsburgh ....... 8/16/89 218 W.D. Denied 556 A.2d 486 (1989)
Com. v. Levine ..... 10/2/89 284 W.D. Denied No. 94 T.D. 1988 (1989)
Egbert, Petition of ............... 3/27/89 495 W.D. Denied 116 Pa.Cmwlth. (1988) 567, 542 A.2d 216
Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 v. Com. Pa. Labor and Relations Bd. .... 9/26/89 578 W.D. Denied 553 A.2d 469 (1988)
Gary v. W.C.A.B. (Country Meadow of So. Hills) .... 9/19/89 16 W.D. Denied No. 882 C.D. 1988 (1989)
Jones Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Brozik ........... 9/22/89 13 W.D. Denied No. 1473 C.D. 1987 (1989)
Lutz, Appeal of .... 10/2/89 10 M.D. Denied 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 112, 551 A.2d 396
Mifflin Co. Sch. Dist. v. Lutz .... 10/2/89 10 M.D. Denied 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 112, 551 A.2d 396
Pennsylvania Power Co. v. W.C.A.B. (Kelly, Quigley and Roberts) ..... 9/19/89 123 W.D. Denied 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 36, 551 A.2d 386
Pennsylvania Power Co. v. W.C.A.B. (Quigley), ....... 9/19/89 160 W.D. Denied 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 36, 551 A.2d 386
President Judge and Judges of Erie County Court of Common Pleas, Petition of ...... 9/13/89 184 W.D. Denied 555 A.2d 273 (1989)
Price v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Township of Bradford ......... 3/27/89 495 W.D. Denied 116 Pa.Cmwlth. (1988) 567, 542 A.2d 216
Pruitt v. Com. Unemployment Compensation Appeal Bd. ....... 10/2/89 70 W.D. Denied No. 310 C.D. 1988 (1989)
Quigley, Petition of ............... 9/19/89 160 W.D. Denied 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 36, 551 A.2d 386
Roussos v. W.C.A.B. (St. Vincent Health Center) ... 9/19/89 163 W.D. Denied No. 143 C.D. 1988 (1989)
Western Pennsylvania Water Co. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review, County of Allegheny, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ..... 9/19/89 182 W.D. Denied 555 A.2d 1357 (1989)
Wills Eye Hosp. v. W.C.A.B. ...... 9/26/89 1153 E.D. Granted No. 49 C.D. 1988 (1988) (111 E.D. 1989)
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA DISPOSITIONS OF PETITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL 565 A.2d 1165-1169 Appeal from the Superior Court
Allocatur Disposition Lower Court Docket and Appeal Docket or Title Date Number Docket Citation — --- ---- --------- ----------- -----------
Com v. Adams ...... 10/16/89 131 M.D. Granted ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) (52 M.D. 563 A.2d 187 1989)
Com. v. Al Hamilton Contracting Co. 10/19/89 025 M.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 429, (1989) 557 A.2d 15
Com v. Bell ....... 9/14/89 1055 E.D. Denied 378 Pa. Super. 573, (1988) 549 A.2d 205
Com. v. Bish ...... 10/16/89 362 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 187
Com. v. Brown ..... 10/2/89 1165 E.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 646, (1988) 555 A.2d 242
Com. v. Copeland .. 9/26/89 298 E.D. Denied 381 Pa. Super. 382, (1989) 554 A.2d 54
Com. v. Cossom .... 9/6/89 1110 E.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 647, (1988) 555 A.2d 243
Com. v. Davis ...... 10/17/89 79 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 817
Com. v. Dumas ...... 10/16/89 371 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 564 A.2d 258
Com. v. Edwards .... 9/13/89 275 E.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 661, (1989) 560 A.2d 238
Com. v. Edwards .... 10/16/89 410 E.D. Granted 388 Pa. Super. 661, (1989) (112 E.D. 560 A.2d 238 1989)
Com. v. Edwards .... 10/19/89 137 M.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 454, (1989) 559 A.2d 63
Com. v. Eskridge ... 10/17/89 99 W.D. Granted 387 Pa. Super. 647, (1989) (90 W.D. 559 A.2d 961 1989)
Com. v. Evans ...... 10/17/89 222 W.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 647, (1989) 560 A.2d 825
Com. v. Ewell ...... 10/2/89 21 E.D. Denied 386 Pa. Super. 647, (1989) 555 A.2d 938
Com. v. Fanelli .... 3/30/89 895 E.D. Denied 377 Pa. Super. 555, (1988) 547 A.2d 1201
Com. v. Fisher ..... 10/13/89 60 W.D. Denied 386 Pa. Super. 647, (1989) 555 A.2d 938
Com. v. Freeman .... 10/2/89 63 W.D. Denied 386 Pa. Super. 647, (1989) 555 A.2d 938
Com. v. Garrett .... 9/19/89 404 E.D. Denied No. 1520 (1989) Philadelphia 1987 and No. 1289 Philadelphia 1988
Com. v. Hundley .... 9/5/89 1095 E.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 651, (1988) 555 A.2d 245
Com. v. Jones ...... 9/6/89 1030 E.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 641, (1988) 551 A.2d 594
Com. v. Liesner .... 8/30/89 1155 E.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 652, (1988) 555 A.2d 246
Com. v. McCary ..... 10/16/89 363 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 564 A.2d 261
Com. v. McCrea ..... 9/26/89 411 E.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 663, (1989) 560 A.2d 239
Com. v. Makoski .... 10/4/89 15 W.D. Denied 386 Pa. Super. 650, (1989) 555 A.2d 940
Com. v. March ...... 10/23/89 560 W.D. Granted 383 Pa. Super. 666, (1988) (91 W.D. 550 A.2d 250 1989)
Com. v. Martin ..... 10/16/89 315 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 192
Com. v. Meenan ..... 10/3/89 205 E.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 650, (1989) 559 A.2d 964
Com. v. Nord ....... 9/13/89 238 E.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 664, (1989) 560 A.2d 240
Com. v. Osborn ..... 10/3/89 338 W.D. Denied 364 Pa. Super. 505, (1987) 528 A.2d 623
Com. v. Perez ...... 9/14/89 336 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 652, (1989) 560 A.2d 829
Com. v. Reardon .... 10/16/89 334 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 193
Com. v. Renzulli ... 10/2/89 478 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 194
Com. v. Resko ...... 10/13/89 109 W.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 651, (1989) 559 A.2d 964
Com. v. Ryan ....... 10/2/89 441 E.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 370, (1989) 556 A.2d 1377
Com. v. Ryzner ..... 9/14/89 436 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 822
Com. v. Sample ..... 9/7/89 326 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 653, (1989) 560 A.2d 830
Com. v. Schwartz ... 9/13/89 313 E.D. Denied No. 106 (1989) Philadelphia 1988
Com. v. Sheppard ... 10/2/89 503 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 194
Com. v. Steward .... 10/2/89 492 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 194
Com. v. Thompson ... 9/13/89 437 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 823
Com. v. Torres ..... 9/26/89 328 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 654, (1989) 560 A.2d 831
Com. v. Turrell .... 10/10/89 517 E.D. Granted ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) (110 E.D. 563 A.2d 195 1989)
Com. v. Watkins .... 9/25/89 423 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 823
Com. v. Watson ..... 10/4/89 323 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 195
Com. v. Williams ... 9/19/89 325 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 655, (1989) 560 A.2d 831
Com. v. Williams ... 10/13/89 484 W.D. Denied 382 Pa. Super. 649, (1988) 549 A.2d 1344
Com. v. Wilson ..... 10/19/89 126 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 196
Com. v. Workman .... 10/2/89 301 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 196
Com. v. Yueille .... 9/22/89 377 E.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 658, (1989) 555 A.2d 251
Com. ex rel. Shields v. Petsock ....... 10/4/89 5 W.D. Denied 386 Pa. Super. 656, (1989) 555 A.2d 944
D.L. Martin Mach. Co. v. Ernst Whinney .......... 10/16/89 173 M.D. Granted ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) (53 M.D. 564 A.2d 265 1989)
Dubyn v. Rite Aid Corp. ............ 9/18/89 925 E.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 670, (1988) 550 A.2d 254
Gallese v. Moore ... 10/24/89 843 E.D. Granted 382 Pa. Super. 650, (1988) (116 E.D. 549 A.2d 1345 1989)
Goodman v. Goodman 10/17/89 244 W.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 374, (1989) 556 A.2d 1379
Hostetter v. Hoover 10/17/89 255 M.D. Denied 378 Pa. Super. 1, (1988) 547 A.2d 1247
Kitrell v. Dakota .. 11/16/88 448 E.D. Denied 373 Pa. Super. 66, (1988) 540 A.2d 301
Neville v. Feingold 10/2/89 473 E.D. Denied No. 456 (1989) Philadelphia 1989
Pappas, Petition of 9/21/89 122 E.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 654, (1989) 559 A.2d 967
Pounds v. Lehman ... 10/4/89 291 W.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 358, (1989) 558 A.2d 872
Pride Contracting, Inc. v. Biehn Const., Inc. ..... 7/20/89 257 E.D. Denied 381 Pa. Super. 155, (1989) 553 A.2d 82
Ruskin v. E.R. Squibb Sons Inc. ............. 10/25/89 305 E.D. Granted 388 Pa. Super. 673, (1989) (115 E.D. 560 A.2d 246 1989)
Russell v. Howard .. 10/2/89 522 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 200
Schmidt v. Schmidt . 9/13/89 65 E.D. Denied No. 3098 (1989) Philadelphia 1988
Spause, Appeal of .. 8/30/89 195 E.D. Denied 381 Pa. Super. 166, (1989) 553 A.2d 87
Spause, In Interest of ............... 8/30/89 195 E.D. Denied 381 Pa. Super. 166, (1989) 553 A.2d 87
Strout Realty, Inc. v. Haverstock .... 10/17/89 82 M.D. Denied 382 Pa. Super. 340, (1989) 555 A.2d 210
Teeter v. St. Vincent College Corp. ............ 10/16/89 359 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 201
Volkhardt, Estate of 9/21/89 122 E.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 654, (1989) 559 A.2d 967
Appeal from the Commonwealth Court
Allocatur Disposition Lower Court Docket and Appeal Docket or Title Date Number Docket Citation ----- ---- --------- ----------- -----------
Beil v. Bd. of Sup'rs, Monroe Twp. ............. 10/17/89 258 M.D. Denied No. 63 T.D. 1987 (1988)
Com v. Harmon ...... 9/22/89 841 E.D. Denied 119 Pa. Commw. 1, (1988) 546 A.2d 726
Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Empfield ......... 10/16/89 234 W.D. Granted 552 A.2d 1154 (1989) (88 W.D. 1989)
Estate of Engle v. Com., Dept. of Revenue .......... 10/2/89 Denied 483 E.D. 557 A.2d 812 (1989)
Filoon v. Commonwealth Court, W.C.A.B., Wausau Ins. Co. .. 11/2/88 Denied 92 E.D. Nos. 2787, 2871 (1988) 2872 C.D. 1985, 901 C.D. 1982, 158 C.D. 1986
Gump By Gump v. Chartiers-Houston School Dist. ..... 10/2/89 295 W.D. Denied 558 A.2d 589 (1989)
Health Group Care Centers, Inc. v. City of Pgh. ..... 10/4/89 73 W.D. Denied 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 384, 552 A.2d 323
Leggens v. Com., Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. 10/17/89 Denied 394 W.D. 117 Pa.Cmwlth. (1988) 107, 542 A.2d 653
Lynch Community Homes, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Upper Moreland ......... 10/2/89 442 E.D. Denied 554 A.2d 155 (1989)
McDermott v. Yakowicz ......... 10/24/89 282 M.D. Denied 120 Pa.Cmwlth. (1988) 479, 548 A.2d 1330
McGaffic v. Redevelopment Authority of City of New Castle .... 10/4/89 28 W.D. Denied 120 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 199, 548 A.2d 653
Markle v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review ........ 10/19/89 50 M.D. Denied No. 2856 C.D. (1989) 1987
Mentzer v. Ognibene 10/16/89 135 M.D. Denied 559 A.2d 79 (1989)
Murphy v. Com., Dept. of Transp. 10/24/89 223 M.D. Denied No. 1881 C.D. (1988) 1987
Olivo v. Tartaglione 9/22/89 1161 E.D. Denied 553 A.2d 538 (1988)
Pa. Northwestern Distributors, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Tp. of Moon 10/16/89 378 W.D. Granted 555 A.2d 1368 (1989) (89 W.D. 1989)
Penn Products Corp., Appeal of ........ 10/17/89 258 M.D. Denied No. 63 T.D. 1987 (1988)
Pleasant v. W.C.A.B. 9/14/89 361 E.D. Denied No. 1141 C.D. (1989) 1988
Redevelopment Authority of City of New Castle, Petition of ...... 10/4/89 28 W.D. Denied 120 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 199, 548 A.2d 653
Rodriguez v. Com., Pa. Bd. of Prob. Parole ......... 10/17/89 224 M.D. Denied No. 2799 C.D. (1988) 1987
Summers, Appeal of 10/2/89 53 E.D. Denied 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 42, 551 A.2d 1134
Summers, Petition of 10/2/89 53 E.D. Denied 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 42, 551 A.2d 1134
University City Housing Co. v. City of Philadelphia ..... 9/21/89 62 E.D. Denied 122 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 179, 551 A.2d 405
Walsh v. City of Philadelphia ..... 10/16/89 529 E.D. Granted 558 A.2d 192 (1989) (113 E.D. 1989)
Walters, Petition of 10/4/89 41 W.D. Denied No. 590 C.D. 1988 (1989)
W L Sales Co. v. W.C.A.B. ......... 10/23/89 032 M.D. Granted 123 Pa.Cmwlth. (1989) 54 M.D. 158, (1989) 552 A.2d 1177
Williams v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review ........ 7/11/89 Denied 740 E.D. No. 2070 C.D. 1987 (1988)
Winters v. Com., Pa. Bd. of Prob. Parole ......... 10/13/89 029 M.D. Denied No. 198 C.D. 1988 (1989)
W.C.A.B. v. S.J. Groves Co. ....... 10/4/89 41 W.D. Denied No. 590 C.D. 1988 (1989)
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA DISPOSITIONS OF PETITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL 567 A.2d 650-655 Appeal from the Superior Court
Allocatur Disposition Lower Court Docket and Appeal Docket or Title Date Number Docket Citation
Anderson Sales and Service, Inc. v. Solarczyk ........ 11/8/89 273 W.D. Granted ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) (99 W.D. 561 A.2d 815 1989)
Apple and Apple, P.C. v. Sanguigni 10/17/89 429 W.D. Denied 381 Pa. Super. 650, (1988) 548 A.2d 636
Austin v. Austin ... 9/19/89 352 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 643, (1989) 560 A.2d 822
Bafile v. Borough of Muncy ............ 11/3/89 028 M.D. 55 M.D. 387 Pa. Super. 645, (1989) (1989) 559 A.2d 959
Butler v. Flo-Ron Vending Co., Inc. 10/2/89 405 E.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 633, (1989) 557 A.2d 730
Carr v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. .... 10/30/89 390 W.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 263, (1989) 558 A.2d 113
Coleman v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co. ......... 10/25/89 052 M.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 658, (1989) 560 A.2d 236
Com. v. Adams ...... 10/30/89 394 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 564 A.2d 255
Com. v. Ayers ...... 10/30/89 76 W.D. Denied 386 Pa. Super. 644, (1989) 555 A.2d 936
Com. v. Bond ....... 10/2/89 506 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 188
Com. v. Burd ....... 10/13/89 41 E.D. Denied No. 364 M.D. 15 (1989)
Com. v. Cain ....... 11/3/89 058 M.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 660, (1989) 560 A.2d 237
Com. v. Caldwell ... 10/11/89 387 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 646, (1989) 560 A.2d 824
Com. v. Campbell ... 10/30/89 489 W.D. Denied 382 Pa. Super. 639, (1988) 549 A.2d 1337
Com. v. Capecci .... 10/2/89 1036 E.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 646, (1988) 555 A.2d 242
Com. v. Cascio ..... 10/23/89 153 W.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 660, (1989) 560 A.2d 237
Com. v. Chambers ... 11/2/89 456 W.D. Granted 385 Pa. Super. 605, (1989) (95, 96, 97 561 A.2d 1257 W.D. 1989)
Com. v. Cox ........ 10/30/89 403 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 564 A.2d 257
Com. v. Davenport .. 11/8/89 120 M.D. Denied No. 818 Harrisburg (1989) 1988
Com. v. Davis ...... 11/13/89 177 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 564 A.2d 257
Com. v. Dennisfn_ .... 10/2/89 527 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 189
Com. v. Dennison ... 10/17/89 317 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 646, (1989) 560 A.2d 824
Com. v. Euell ...... 11/6/89 176 W.D. Denied 377 Pa. Super. 650, (1988) 541 A.2d 1150
Com. v. Gibbons .... 10/24/89 243 W.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 297, (1989) 556 A.2d 915
Com. v. Gies ....... 10/2/89 416 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 818
Com. v. Gilmore .... 9/21/89 345 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 648, (1989) 560 A.2d 826
Com. v. Hubing ..... 11/1/89 160 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 564 A.2d 259
Com. v. Huntley .... 10/2/89 415 E.D. Denied No. 2426 Phila- (1989) delphia 1985
Com. v. Jefferson .. 11/8/89 112 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 819
Com. v. Jenkins .... 10/2/89 435 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 819
Com. v. Johnson .... 11/1/89 124 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 819
Com. v. Jones ...... 10/13/89 132 E.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 648, (1989) 559 A.2d 962
Com. v. King ....... 10/11/89 987 E.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 649, (1988) 559 A.2d 963
Com. v. LaCourtfn_ ... 8/3/89 536 E.D. Denied 343 Pa. Super. 612, (1985) 494 A.2d 481
Com. v. Laskaris ... 10/23/89 151 W.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 663, (1989) 560 A.2d 239
Com. v. Laureano ... 10/30/89 6 M.D. Denied 386 Pa. Super. 649, (1989) 555 A.2d 940
Com. v. Lenig ...... 11/3/89 116 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 820
Com. v. Leta ....... 11/9/89 99 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 820
Com. v. Liddick .... 10/17/89 205 W.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 650, (1989) 560 A.2d 827
Com. v. McClain .... 10/25/89 247 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 820
Com. v. McCormick .. 11/1/89 083 M.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 663, (1989) 560 A.2d 239
Com. v. Mangello ... 11/3/89 594 W.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 643, (1988) 551 A.2d 595
Com. v. Martin ..... 11/3/89 152 W.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 663, (1989) 560 A.2d 239
Com. v. Miller ..... 10/4/89 445 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 820
Com. v. Monaco ..... 10/17/89 335 W.D. Denied 327 Pa. Super. 369, (1988) 475 A.2d 843
Com. v. Morales .... 9/21/89 106 E.D. Denied 387 Pa. Super. 650, (1989) 559 A.2d 964
Com. v. Nassif ..... 11/6/89 388 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 564 A.2d 262
Com. v. Nihart ..... 11/1/89 139 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 193
Com. v. Pekarski ... 11/2/89 81 E.D. Granted 386 Pa. Super. 651, (1989) (122 E.D. 555 A.2d 942 1989)
Com. v. Perez ...... 11/9/89 043 M.D. Granted 381 Pa. Super. 149, (1989) (57 M.D. 553 A.2d 79 1989)
Com. v. Pleaze ..... 10/30/89 614 W.D. Denied 384 Pa. Super. 644, (1988) 551 A.2d 596
Com. v. Price ...... 11/8/89 128 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 193
Com. v. Rivers ..... 10/30/89 228 W.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 409, (1989) 557 A.2d 5
Com. v. Rodgers .... 11/1/89 089 M.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 652, (1989) 560 A.2d 829
Com. v. Rodriguez .. 11/14/89 303 M.D. Granted 379 Pa. Super. 24, (1988) (59 M.D. 549 A.2d 578 1989)
Com. v. Rossiter ... 10/11/89 401 E.D. Denied 389 Pa. Super. 653, (1989) 560 A.2d 830
Com. v. Roxberry ... 11/9/89 161 W.D. Granted 381 Pa. Super. 314, (1989) (100 W.D. 553 A.2d 986 1989)
Com. v. Salmon ..... 10/16/89 542 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 194
Com. v. Schroth .... 11/3/89 041 M.D. Denied 388 Pa. Super. 665, (1989) 560 A.2d 241
Com. v. Silva ...... 11/3/89 593 W.D. Denied 383 Pa. Super. 668, (1988) 550 A.2d 252
Com. v. Simila ..... 10/11/89 512 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 194
Com. v. Thomas ..... 11/6/89 300 W.D. Granted ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) (98 W.D. 563 A.2d 195 1989)
Com. v. Weikel ..... 10/16/89 558 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 195
Com. v. Williams ... 10/30/89 71 W.D. Denied 386 Pa. Super. 655, (1989) 555 A.2d 944
Com. v. Winston .... 10/16/89 572 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 823
Dewey v. Dewey ..... 11/13/89 166 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 196
DiGiovanni v. Torg 10/16/89 553 E.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 197
Fayette Bank And Trust Co. v. Patterson ........ 10/30/89 646 W.D. Denied 385 Pa. Super. 659, (1988) 555 A.2d 252
Feyes v. Gehl ...... 10/17/89 249 W.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 565 A.2d 824
Haas v. Foster ..... 11/13/87 156 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 561 A.2d 824
Hanson v. Doric .... 11/15/89 136 M.D. Denied ___ Pa.Super. ___, (1989) 563 A.2d 197