Samuel J. Roberts

In this divorce case, a wife who had moved to Pennsylvania sought alimony pendente lite and other economic relief from her non-resident husband, who had been served by mail but did not appear or respond to the complaint. The trial court dismissed the economic claims for lack of personal jurisdiction over the husband. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the husband had not waived the jurisdictional defense by failing to raise it in preliminary objections because the trial court had properly allowed him to file a nunc pro tunc petition under local rules, with no showing of abuse of discretion or prejudice to the wife, and that his filing of exceptions solely to contest jurisdiction did not constitute consent to jurisdiction.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a divorced father's child support obligation for one of his sons could be met by drawing from a guardianship account funded by a personal injury settlement awarded to the child, rather than from the parents' own resources. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and held that such use of the child's funds is improper unless the court first determines that the parents are unable to meet the child's support needs from their own financial resources and earning ability. The court reasoned that parents bear a primary and nearly absolute duty to support their minor children according to their capacity, so a child's assets generally may not be used to relieve that obligation, and support calculations must consider actual cash flow and resources rather than merely reported taxable income. On remand, the trial court was directed to assess the parents' finances, allocate resources first to children without other income sources, and only then consider applying the guardianship income if a shortfall exists.

family lawprocedure

Patricia Gasper, as guardian for her incompetent father Walter Weir, brought an equity action to set aside two real estate transfers Weir made to his son-in-law Aventino Ciao, claiming Weir lacked competency at the time. The trial court denied relief, finding the transfers valid, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the confidential relationship issue was waived for failure to raise it in post-trial motions, that after-discovered evidence should have been considered but did not require reversal, and that the trial judge properly credited the attorney's lay testimony about Weir's lucid mental state during the transactions over conflicting expert opinion.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

This case involved Linda Yankoskie's petition under Pennsylvania's Protection From Abuse Act seeking a court order to protect her and her three young children from her former boyfriend, Samuel Lenker, who had allegedly assaulted them during visits to her apartment. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that the Act did not apply because the parties no longer resided together. The Superior Court reversed, holding that the Act covers the situation: the parties qualified as 'family or household members' both as parents and children and as persons living as spouses based on their ongoing relationship, shared children, and frequent contact; Lenker had engaged in abusive conduct; and he satisfied the residency requirement by having 'legal access' to the apartment through the petitioner's consent. The court emphasized the Act's broad remedial purpose to protect victims of domestic violence even when the abuser maintains a separate residence but visits with permission.

family law

This case involved a paternity dispute in which the alleged father sought a second blood sample extraction for additional testing after initial blood tests excluded him as the father of the child. The court decided that a party moving for a second blood extraction must first show by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing that the prior test results were inaccurate, and it reversed the trial court's order directing the mother to submit to another extraction without such a showing. The core reasoning was that constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with due process requirements, apply to blood extractions for paternity testing, and neither the parties' stipulation nor the Uniform Act on Blood Tests authorized additional testing absent proof of inaccuracy in the first results.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Books v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., PPL appealed from summary judgment granted to additional defendants Mack Trucks and Hill Manufacturing in a case where plaintiff David Books was electrocuted while using a dump trailer near overhead power lines owned by PPL. PPL had asserted claims against the manufacturers for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranties, alleging they failed to warn about the dangers of raising the trailer near power lines. The court vacated the summary judgment, reasoning that the record did not show plaintiff was aware of the risk of operating near the lines (as opposed to direct contact) or that electricity could arc, creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a broader warning would have caused him to act differently.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Commonwealth v. Hanes, the defendant was convicted of theft after a jury found he stole a truckload of live red oak logs valued at $2,000, which graded the offense as a first-degree misdemeanor. The appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as the thief and the trial court's treatment of an alleged oral contract price as conclusive proof of the logs' value, which prevented him from introducing rebuttal evidence. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction but held that contract or retail price constitutes only prima facie evidence of value in theft cases, not conclusive proof, allowing a defendant to present any relevant direct or circumstantial evidence of open-market value at the time and place of the theft. As a result, the court found the trial court erred by excluding the defense evidence on value and ordered a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a libel action brought by two Haverford Township police officers against a local newspaper, its publisher, and a reporter over a series of articles alleging unnecessary force and brutality in three incidents involving juveniles. A jury awarded $100,000 to one officer and $50,000 to the other, and the trial court denied post-trial motions. On appeal, the court independently reviewed the record and affirmed the verdicts, holding that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to establish actual malice through the newspaper's failure to investigate, distortion of a police captain's account, and publication of unsupported accusations. The officers were treated as public officials subject to the actual malice standard.

free speechcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved a negligence claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 by employee Binder against supplier Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. after a cast-iron roll exploded during a shrink-fitting repair process performed by Washington Tool & Machine Co., causing serious injuries. The court affirmed the jury's verdict awarding Binder $420,000 (plus delay damages) and his wife $80,000, rejecting J&L's argument that it owed no duty because it had provided general information about the roll's cast-iron composition via purchase orders. The core reasoning was that a supplier must use reasonable care to inform expected users of specific dangerous conditions—here the roll's high carbon content and chill-casting stresses that made it prone to splitting when heated—if the supplier knows or has reason to know of those risks and the users' likely unawareness, and that J&L's knowledge of Washington's heating methods made the general disclosures insufficient. The court also found no trial error in refusing a contributory negligence instruction or declining to submit Washington's potential negligence to the jury, as it would not relieve J&L of liability.

torts & liability

The case involved a former wife's appeal from the dismissal of her equity complaint seeking to enforce terms of a separation agreement regarding college expenses, medical expenses, and arrearages, which overlapped with issues in a pending support proceeding in family court. The trial court had sustained the husband's preliminary objections on grounds that the claims belonged in an action at law rather than equity and dismissed the complaint. The Superior Court held that separation agreements are private contracts enforceable only through an action in assumpsit, not equity, and that parties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement. Because the issues overlapped with the support action, the court reasoned that consolidation in one proceeding before a single judge would promote judicial economy and avoid conflicting orders. The court therefore remanded with directions to transfer the matter to the family court judge for consideration on the merits as an assumpsit action.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether Cambria Savings and Loan Association was required to honor a standby letter of credit issued to Associated East Mortgage Company in connection with a construction project managed by Penn State Construction, Inc. Penn State sought to enjoin payment after Associated East demanded funds claiming default on the contract due to delays. The trial court found that Associated East had committed fraud by causing the delays through late payments on approved requisitions and by attempting to collect on the letter of credit after Penn State had substantially completed the work. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Associated East's claims, holding that the fraud justified refusing to honor the letter of credit under the Uniform Commercial Code and relevant precedents, as the beneficiary's actions vitiated the transaction.

business & regulatory

This case involved an appeal from a trial court order granting one spouse possession of the marital residence as special relief during ongoing divorce proceedings involving equitable distribution and alimony. The appellate court quashed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable. The decision followed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in Fried v. Fried, which established that interim orders in divorce cases do not qualify as final orders or fall under exceptions to the final judgment rule. The court emphasized that allowing such appeals would cause unacceptable delays in resolving matrimonial matters, as illustrated by the prolonged proceedings and changed circumstances in this case.

family lawprocedure

In this juvenile delinquency case, Marlow Crawford was arrested on charges including burglary and failed to appear at a scheduled detention hearing after being released on subpoena, prompting a bench warrant; he was then held in contempt by the trial court and committed to a youth center pending further proceedings. The Superior Court addressed challenges to the juvenile court's authority to impose criminal contempt for nonappearance, the sufficiency of evidence of willful refusal, alleged due process and self-incrimination violations from the hearing procedures, and improper detention beyond statutory time limits. The court held that juvenile judges possess inherent and statutory powers under the Judicial Code section 323 and the Juvenile Act to enforce orders through warrants and contempt, that the evidence supported the finding, and that any over-detention was remedied by prompt release without loss of jurisdiction. The appeal was quashed as moot because the juvenile had already been released from custody.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a Pennsylvania State Police traffic checkpoint on Route 62, where all vehicles were stopped to check licenses and registrations, violated constitutional protections when it led to the arrest of driver Stephen Leninsky for operating under a suspended license. The Superior Court vacated the conviction and ordered the appellant discharged. Although one judge expressed disagreement with a recent panel decision holding such checkpoints per se unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the court applied that precedent and independently concluded the stop was invalid. The core reasoning focused on the absence of written guidelines, supervisory instructions, advance public notice, or other safeguards that would limit officer discretion and reduce the intrusiveness of the seizure under both the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a dispute over custody of a minor child, Shannon, following the 1981 divorce of her parents. The father sought modification of a consent custody order that had placed primary custody with the mother, citing changed circumstances after both parents remarried and the child expressed unhappiness with her living situation. The trial court found no substantial change warranting modification and maintained custody with the mother. On appeal, the Superior Court held that the evidence did establish a substantial change in circumstances since the original order, requiring both parents to be considered equally on the child's best interests. The court therefore vacated the trial court's order and remanded for further proceedings to determine custody based on current best interests.

family law

This case concerns a father's petition to end child support payments for his 19-year-old son after high school graduation, specifically challenging continued payments while the son attends a commercial art school rather than a traditional college. The trial court denied the petition and ordered ongoing weekly support of $40, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that a parent's support obligation for post-secondary education applies based on the child's aptitude and desire to complete the program and prepare for employment, without being restricted to four-year colleges, provided no undue hardship results to the parent. Precedent established that children over 18 may receive support for education at institutions like art schools or preparatory programs if it aids their transition to adulthood. The record showed the son had relevant skills for commercial art and that the father had sufficient income after expenses to cover the payments without hardship.

family law

The case concerned a dispute over superior rights to possess a piece of real property in Allegheny County, where appellants claimed possession under a 1968 lease and appellees claimed a right of first refusal to purchase under an earlier 1958 lease executed by an attorney-in-fact. The trial court entered a decree awarding appellees the right of first refusal and dismissed appellants' claims. On appeal, the court examined the scope of the power of attorney, which authorized the attorney-in-fact only to lease the property for a fixed monthly rent of $200, and determined that this grant did not extend to including a right of first refusal in the lease. As a result, the 1958 lease provision was invalid, leaving appellants with the superior possessory interest under the later lease.

property

In Cosner v. United Penn Bank, homeowners in a small development sued the bank that acquired title to the property after foreclosure, seeking a permanent injunction to require continued maintenance of the shared water well and septic system serving their homes. The trial court granted the injunction, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that equitable estoppel applied, as the original developer had promised maintenance until seven homes were occupied and the bank continued providing the services after acquisition, inducing the homeowners' justifiable reliance to their detriment.

property

This case is an appeal from a conviction for burglary and conspiracy, where the defendant was identified by the homeowner and neighbors after fleeing the scene of a break-in and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms. The appellant challenged the trial court's denial of his request for new counsel and claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court's questioning of him, a missing witness instruction, hearsay evidence, and for not calling a detective to impeach witnesses with prior inconsistent statements. The court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on three of the ineffectiveness claims because they had arguable merit but lacked a record on whether counsel had a reasonable basis for his actions, and it directed the trial court to supplement its opinion explaining the denial of new counsel due to conflicting evidence on whether irreconcilable differences existed. The core reasoning was that meaningful appellate review required a complete record on these issues under Pennsylvania rules and precedents governing counsel substitution and ineffectiveness claims.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from the denial of a petition to open a default judgment in a landlord-tenant eviction action filed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development against the appellants in Philadelphia Municipal Court for alleged nonpayment of rent. The municipal court entered a default judgment for possession after the appellants did not appear at a hearing held only three days after the complaint was posted on the premises, leading to their eviction. The appellants argued that service failed to comply with local court rules requiring at least twenty days' notice before a default judgment could be entered. The appellate court reversed, holding that the improper service meant the municipal court lacked personal jurisdiction over the appellants, rendering the default judgment invalid and requiring it to be opened to allow the appellants to respond.

procedureproperty