Opinion
No. 324 EAL 2019 No. 325 EAL 2019 No. 326 EAL 2019 No. 327 EAL 2019
12-24-2019
Joy M. FOX v. Stacey SMITH, Drew J. Baum, Ginamarie Ellis, Theresa Agostinelli, Steve Cocozza, Ellen Luongo, Steven Luongo, Maryann D. Furlong, Richard B. Kerns, William Pascale, Republican Committee of Chester Heights and Committee for the Future of Chester Heights, Petition of: Theresa Agostinelli and Drew Baum Joy M. Fox v. Stacey Smith, Drew J. Baum, Ginamarie Ellis, Theresa Agostinelli, Steve Cocozza, Ellen Luongo, Steven Luongo, Maryann D. Furlong, Richard B. Kerns, William Pascale, Republican Committee of Chester Heights and Committee for the Future of Chester Heights, Petition of: Stacey Smith Joy M. Fox v. Stacey Smith, Drew J. Baum, Ginamarie Ellis, Theresa Agostinelli, Steve Cocozza, Ellen Luongo, Steven Luongo, Maryann D. Furlong, Richard B. Kerns, William Pascale, Republican Committee of Chester Heights and Committee for the Future of Chester Heights, Petition of: William Pascale and Drew Baum Joy M. Fox v. Stacey Smith, Drew J. Baum, Ginamarie Ellis, Theresa Agostinelli, Steve Cocozza, Ellen Luongo, Steven Luongo, Maryann D. Furlong, Richard B. Kerns, William Pascale, Republican Committee of Chester Heights and Committee for the Future of Chester Heights, Petition of: Ellen Luongo, Steven Luongo, Republican Committee of Chester Heights, and Committee for the Furture of Chester Heights (Collectively, "Moving, Defendants
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 24th day of December, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner is:
Whether the Superior Court panel, in a matter of first impression, improperly developed a rule for determining proper venue in an internet-based defamation action that deems venue proper anywhere the purported defamation is accessed through the internet despite the lack of any other connection to the venue, a rule which abandons all of the protections accorded by the limiting characteristics of the venue rules and opens the door to unchecked forum shopping, calling for this Court to provide "decision and statutory guidance" as requested by the Opinion of the concurring panel member of the Pennsylvania Superior Court?