Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

The Court affirmed the agency-rate decision, rejected adoption of the federal genuinely-ambiguous framework, and clarified that Pennsylvania courts must use the Statutory Construction Act to interpret agency regulations, with an agency’s interpretation considered as one nonexclusive factor rather than automatically…

The Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order, concluding that the District Attorney did not establish that Act 40 violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. It held that the General Assembly may define district attorneys’ powers, that the constitutional exceptions for Philadelphia permit the challenged local or…

The Court held that Pennsylvania’s $250,000 sovereign-immunity damages cap, as applied to Freilich’s catastrophic injuries, violates neither the state constitutional jury-trial right nor the right to a remedy, and affirmed the judgment enforcing the cap.

The Court held that a prosecutor improperly invited the jury to infer guilt from Jenkins’s pre-arrest consultation with counsel, but concluded that the error was trial error rather than structural error.

The Court held that the DUI-specific ARD statute does not require automatic termination whenever a participant violates an ARD condition. Because the statute’s direction to proceed “as prescribed in the Rules of Criminal Procedure” is ambiguous, the Court construed it to preserve the trial court’s discretion under…

The Court held that a theft-by-deception conviction based on omitting information from an income-based public-benefits application requires proof that the omission affected eligibility or the amount of benefits received.

The Court granted allowance of appeal on two issues, then vacated the Superior Court’s order and reversed, relying on the limits of the presumption under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d). The order explains that the presumption does not apply without evidence that a parent knew or should have known of abuse or its risk and…

The opinion reviews a capital PCRA court order granting Albert Perez a new trial based on ineffective assistance concerning cross-examination of jailhouse informant Donald Sumner, alleged nondisclosure of impeachment evidence, alleged use of uncorrected false testimony, and failure to seek suppression of portions of…

The Court held that a PSERS member is not barred from purchasing service credit for prior out-of-state service merely because she previously received a lump-sum retirement benefit for that service.

The Court held that the Drug Overdose Response Immunity Act does not protect Wilson from prosecution for drug paraphernalia discovered during a lawful inventory search conducted after he had been placed in an ambulance and the medical emergency response had ended.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a party who wishes to appeal from a collateral order must file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the order's entry, or await the entry of a final order to raise the issue should it survive final judgment. Because Pa.R.A.P.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overruled Commonwealth v. Russo and held that Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, whose term 'possessions' includes land, affords greater protection than the Fourth Amendment to private land beyond the curtilage of a home or building where the owner has taken…

The Court held that Adams presented sufficient concrete evidence from which a factfinder could infer a causal connection between his good-faith report of workplace harassment and adverse employment actions.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that an insurer's duties to defend and indemnify are not abrogated by public policy merely because an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from sex trafficking.

The Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision imposing joint and several liability on Campbell and his firm for counsel fees awarded to the guardian ad litem. It held that the appellate court improperly relied on the circumstances of a prior sanctions decision and lacked a sufficient factual record to conclude that…

The Court held that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over the Commonwealth’s appeals from orders granting pretrial habeas relief and quashing all charges without prejudice, because those orders were interlocutory and no statutory or rule-based exception applied.

The Court held that a conviction for resisting arrest cannot stand when the arrest was based solely on a warrant and the Commonwealth failed to present evidence establishing the warrant's validity beyond an officer's second-hand knowledge that it existed.

The Court affirmed the Superior Court because Shivers waived his claim that Pennsylvania's Constitution provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment against investigative stops based on flight in a high-crime area.

The Court held that a defendant convicted of multiple Tier I and Tier II sexual offenses in a single prosecution, without a prior qualifying sexual conviction, is not subject to the mandatory three-year consecutive probation term tied to Tier III classification.

The Court held that probation cannot be revoked or extended based solely on conduct occurring after the fixed probationary term expired. Because the Commonwealth failed to prove by reliable, probative evidence that Hitchner absconded or violated probation before the expiration date, the revocation court lacked…

The Court held that a prosecutor’s concession cannot alone support PCRA relief, and that the PCRA court must independently determine both jurisdiction and entitlement to relief. Because Brown did not prove that the alleged witness identification existed, and because the PCRA court failed to address the facially…

The Court held that Black's prosecutions for theft by deception and receiving stolen property were barred by the statute of limitations. Theft by deception is not a continuing offense because the statute does not plainly indicate a legislative purpose to prohibit continuing conduct; receiving stolen property is…

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Workers’ Compensation Act’s Anti‑Referral Provision does not prohibit self‑referrals for prescription drugs or professional pharmaceutical services, limiting the ban to the eight enumerated categories; consequently it reversed the Commonwealth Court and remanded for…

The Court held that the Gaming Act and Crimes Code operate together, and that skill-based and hybrid slot machines fall within the Gaming Act’s definition of a slot machine. It rejected the Commonwealth Court’s conclusions that the Gaming Act does not reach unlicensed slot machines and that the devices are outside the…

Justice Wecht concurs in the denial of Mother’s petition for allowance of appeal because it does not adequately present grounds satisfying Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1114(b).

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that, absent statutory authority to forfeit derivative contraband, a denial of a motion for return of property functions as a de facto forfeiture and therefore the property must be returned; it reversed the Superior Court and remanded for entry of an order restoring the firearm…

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court’s judgment and held that plaintiffs cannot revive time‑barred asbestos claims against a dissolved LLC by piercing the LLC’s veil to reach the parent company.

The Supreme Court held that the build‑to‑suit lease for the Pennsylvania State Police is a "public work" under the Prevailing Wage Act, so prevailing‑wage requirements apply, and it reversed the Commonwealth Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a school district’s policy of using a $10,000 monetary threshold to select properties for assessment appeals does not violate the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and that the district’s application of that policy was not arbitrary or discriminatory.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of a motion to suppress, holding that the totality of the circumstances—including ShotSpotter alerts, rapid police response, sole presence of the appellant and passenger, and evasive behavior—provided reasonable suspicion for an investigative…

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, holding that the malice standard for third-degree murder and aggravated assault is uniform—requiring a conscious disregard of an unjustified and extremely high risk of death or serious bodily injury—and that the evidence against Peters satisfied…

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court, holding that the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA) requires contractors to honor a consumer’s cancellation of a home‑improvement contract even when the notice is not in writing, and that this rule does not create an impossible compliance…

The Court held that the common-law doctrine of nullum tempus cannot toll or otherwise defeat the 12-year construction statute of repose in Section 5536, which extinguishes covered claims after the repose period expires.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s summary judgment, holding that West Chester’s stormwater charge is a local tax because the borough provides the service in its public capacity and there is no contractual relationship, rendering the university immune.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the judicially created “positive steps” test is invalid when applied to claimants who have not performed services for wages, affirming that Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Unemployment Compensation Law provides the exclusive two‑factor test for self‑employment and that the…

The Court held that a trial court reviewing a Commonwealth motion to nolle prosequi must examine the Commonwealth’s specific legal and factual reasons and determine whether they provide a valid and reasonable basis for dismissal.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that cast vote records (CVRs) are not the “contents of ballot boxes or voting machines” under Section 308 of the Election Code and therefore are not exempt from public disclosure.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, holding that the Romeo decision—requiring a vendor to have an affirmative duty to disclose a defect for a UTPCPL omission claim—is good law. Because Halpern failed to allege such a duty, his claim under the catch‑all provision was dismissed.

The Supreme Court held that the Juvenile Act and Rule 1300 require venue in a dependency proceeding to be limited to the county where the child resides or is present, and because G.G.B.

The court held that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for every Pennsylvania felony-murder conviction does not violate the federal Eighth Amendment because the relevant federal categorical precedents concern capital punishment or juvenile offenders.