The Legal Intelligencer Blog

PUC Must Still Refrain From Act 13 Ordinance Reviews

By Zack Needles
Of the Legal Staff

The state Supreme Court has denied the Public Utility Commission’s appeal of a Commonwealth Court order requiring the agency to cease and desist from reviewing municipal ordinances to determine whether they comply with the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code and the state Oil and Gas Act.

The court issued a one-page order Thursday quashing the appeal. The order noted that Justice Thomas G. Saylor dissented, saying he would have noted probable jurisdiction and called for expedited appeal proceedings.

The agency was charged with the task under Section 3305, Chapter 33 of the recent Act 13 amendments to the Oil and Gas Act, but Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley said in an order issued in October that the PUC should have ceased performing the reviews following the Commonwealth Court's July 26, 2012, en banc ruling in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, invalidating as unconstitutional those amendments that require municipalities to adopt uniform zoning ordinances that would allow drilling in all zoning districts.

The constitutionality question in Robinson is currently awaiting a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Zack Needles can be contacted at 215-557-2493 or [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @ZNeedlesTLI.

Attorney Disagrees Precedent Pre-empts Judicial Retirement Suit in Commonwealth Court

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

During Pennsylvania Supreme Court oral arguments in two lawsuits challenging mandatory judicial retirement, Justice J. Michael Eakin asked about another lawsuit currently pending in the Commonwealth Court and whether all three cases could be tossed because the high court, in Gondelman v. Commonwealth, has previously rejected a constitutional challenge to mandatory retirement.

J. Bart DeLone, a senior deputy attorney general who argued against overturning the retirement requirement in both the Supreme and Commonwealth courts, said in response to Eakin that Gondelman does control all three cases.

However, one of the attorneys for the judicial plaintiffs in the Commonwealth Court case said in an interview that their lawsuit differs from the two lawsuits taken up by the Supreme Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction.

Tom Groshens, of Sprague & Sprague, said in an interview that “our case includes claims by qualified voters who contend that mandatory retirement deprived them of the efficacy of their vote for [Commonwealth Court Senior] Judge [Rochelle S.] Friedman for a 10-year term because that 10-year term was cut short by three years.” The lawsuit also involves a challenge to the 2001 constitutional amendment that changed the mandatory retirement from the birthdays on which judges turn 70 to the end of the year in which judges turn 70.

Some judges get to serve longer than others just because of when their birthdays fall, which is “amplified discrimination,” Groshens said.

Further, the presiding judge in Commonwealth Court, Senior Judge James Gardner Colins, said that he was not sure Gondelman applies to all the theories in the Friedman suit – “indeed, the people elected the individual jurists to a 10-year term,” Groshens pointed out.

When asked for comment, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office referred The Legal to the government’s brief.

The presence of the three voters is beside the point, because they “are presenting the same claim that the Supreme Court rejected in Gondelman,” DeLone, Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane and John G. Knorr III, chief deputy attorney general, wrote in the Commonwealth Court brief.

While the plaintiffs claim the 2001 amendment “exacerbates the violation of Article I,” the state’s brief said. “But this, too, can make no difference: the holding in Gondelman is that in forming or altering their government, the people are not constrained by the provisions of Article I,” which spells out the fundamental rights Pennsylvanians have under the state constitution.

The Legal’s full coverage of the oral arguments can be read here.

Amaris Elliott-Engel can be contacted at 215-557-2354 or [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @AmarisTLI.

Voter ID Gets Date for Commonwealth Court Replay

By Saranac Hale Spencer
Of the Legal Staff

Last summer’s closely watched challenge to Pennsylvania’s voter ID law is scheduled for a second round this coming summer.

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson, who heard the case over the summer and granted a preliminary injunction just before the November election, has scheduled the new trial to start July 15 in Harrisburg.

The initial case volleyed from Simpson’s courtroom to the state’s Supreme Court on appeal and then back to Simpson before the injunction issued.

"I will not restrain election officials from asking for photo ID at the polls; rather, I will enjoin enforcement of those parts of Act 18 which directly result in disenfranchisement," Simpson said in his 18-page opinion in October.

The American Civil Liberties Union, along with other citizens’ groups and the Washington, D.C., firm of Arnold & Porter, brought the suit challenging the law – passed in March 2012 – arguing that it would disenfranchise voters.

The ACLU plans to ask the court to extend the preliminary injunction until the case is concluded, according to a release from the organization.

Saranac Hale Spencer can be contacted at 215-557-2449 or [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @SSpencerTLI.

Voter ID Ads Could Continue Until Election Day

By Saranac Hale Spencer
Of the Legal Staff

Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson this morning declined to hasten the pace for deciding on a motion filed by challengers to Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law asking him to enforce the injunction he issued earlier this month keeping the law from taking effect this November.

The challengers, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a petition late last week requesting that the court enforce the order because the state hasn’t amended the advertising campaign it began earlier this year to reflect the change to the law’s implementation.

The petition asks Simpson to order the state to send corrective literature to voters who have gotten mailings indicating they will have to show ID to vote, immediately stop any advertising that tells voters they must have ID in November, and reword robo-calls to clearly state that an ID won’t be required for the upcoming election, among other things.

Simpson asked the state to respond by October 30 and the challengers quickly followed that order by filing a motion to speed up the time frame. Because October 30 is only a week before the election, they argued, if the court were to grant the motion to enforce the injunction, there wouldn’t be enough time to correct what they contend are misleading advertisements indicating that voters will need to show a photo ID before casting a ballot.

“Petitioners’ petition for supplemental injunction to enforce court’s October 2, 2012, order implicates new legal issues,” Simpson said in a two-page order, explaining that he wanted to offer the state sufficient time to respond.

“I exercised my discretion to reduce respondents’ time to respond from the standard 30 days … to six days,” Simpson said.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal and Pa. Law Weekly

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story in today’s Legal is a look at whether Pennsylvania is being forced to decide the Restatement issue it is facing. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, after the Third Circuit said for the third time that the Restatement (Third) of Torts governs products liability cases in the state, some attorneys said the federal appeals court seems to be trying to force the issue.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that employees of West Penn Allegheny Health System have been barred by collateral estoppel from filing a class action in state court when a Pittsburgh federal judge already ruled against certifying a collective action in a similar suit by the same plaintiffs.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that key claims against Prevacid, a heartburn drug, have survived in a federal lawsuit.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Health Care Law column, Vasilios J. Kalogredis and Karilynn Bayus write that hospitals are beginning to feel the effects of quality initiatives.

In a Supreme Court column on Page 7, Stephen A. Miller and Thomas M. O’Rourke write a look into the effect of the ¬Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes case and expansion of “rigorous” review.

Today’s lead story in PLW is a look at campaign fundraising in the attorney general race. As reporter Ben Present writes, Kathleen Kane has bolstered her coffers, narrowly outpacing David Freed.

Below the fold on Page 1, Ben Present writes that a Commonwealth Court en banc panel allowed General Motors to unilaterally suspend an injured worker’s benefits without the required paperwork because the man had taken a voluntary retirement package.

On Page 3, reporter Zack Needles writes that the Superior Court has blocked the discovery of past surgical notes in a medical malpractice suit.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about violating attorney-client privilege when a client’s financial situation changes; Caren E. Morrissey’s Family Law column in which she writes that mental health records should be discoverable in custody matters; and Peter J. Bietz’s Trusts and Estates column, in which he writes that attorneys may need to change their practices after the EGTRRA’s sunset.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Wednesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson blocking the Pennsylvania voter ID requirement for the next election. As reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes, Simpson said he is “not still convinced in my predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising” out of the requirement to show photo ID before casting a ballot.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that Mike McQueary has filed a defamation suit against Penn State tied to the Sandusky scandal. McQueary sued the university for $4 million under whistleblower, defamation and misrepresentation causes of action.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that a plaintiffs lawyer argued yesterday in front of the state Superior Court that a Philadelphia judge was wrong in entering a compulsory nonsuit in the first of 30 cases over allegations that brain cancers were caused by a carcinogen leaking from a chemical plant.

In more Regional News on Page 3, a subpoena of Google for the names of bloggers was ruled properly quashed.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In this week’s GC Mid-Atlantic column on Page 5, Erika Brown Lee and Elaine Lawson write about compliance with anti-bribery and new data privacy regulations.

In an Intellectual Property column on Page 7, Paul F. Prestia and Thomas G. Southard write about the economics and logic of patent litigation versus review.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Friday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is the voter ID decision being back in Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson’s hands. As reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes, Simpson gave strong indications that he is planning to enjoin part of Pennsylvania’s new law before November’s election. He said that some parts of the law may well have merit, and if he issues an injunction he’d like to find ground short of “all or nothing.”

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that Comcast has beaten back an attempt by a class of plaintiffs to enforce a proposed settlement with the cable company in an antitrust case that subsequently was granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that Ken Shear, who was a cornerstone of the Philadelphia Bar Association for almost 36 years, plans to retire in 2013.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Jeff Mordock of the Delaware Business Court Insider writes that the Delaware Supreme Court has denied Grupo Mexico’s motion to reargue the court’s decision to affirm a Chancery Court decision ruling that resulted in awarding a record $2 billion in damages and $304 million in attorney fees in the Southern Peru shareholder litigation.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an Employment Law column on Page 5, Jeffrey Campolongo writes about employment law cases in the upcoming Supreme Court term.

In a Franchise Law column on Page 7, Craig R. Tractenberg and Gregg Rubenstein discuss necessary formality in franchise agreements.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to email any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Wednesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is the voter ID case again going before Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson. As reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes, the case is back in Simpson’s hands after being remanded by the state Supreme Court, and presents a fast-developing set of facts as state officials continued to attempt to craft the voter ID program on the eve of Tuesday’s hearing.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that senior judges have been restored to the Philadelphia court system after the Court of Common Pleas was required to reduce its complement of senior judges by the same number of judges confirmed to fill vacancies on the bench.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Ben Present writes that a York County jury has awarded $6 million to the estate of a woman who died from internal bleeding after a resident from an area hospital allegedly failed to properly diagnose and communicate her condition to a cardiologist.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In this week’s GC Mid-Atlantic column on Page 5, Hayes Hunt and Jillian R. Thornton write about the effects of social media on the workplace.

In a U.S. Supreme Court column on Page 7, Stephen A. Miller writes the second part in a preview of the upcoming term.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's .

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Wednesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is the state Supreme Court sending the voter ID case back to the Commonwealth Court. As reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes, challengers to the law won a round yesterday when the justices filed a per curiam order vacating the Commonwealth Court’s decision not to issue a preliminary injunction last month. The state must now prove that nobody will be disenfranchised by the law.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that complaints about priest sexual abuse claim that Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young assisted the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in efforts to conceal sexual misconduct by its clergy. The firm is not a named defendant in the eight civil lawsuits that were filed.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that a Connecticut insurer has sued Chartwell Law Offices, seeking a declaratory judgment that it does not have a duty to indemnify the firm against malpractice claims tied to the Bridgeport fire.

In more Regional News on Page 3, a New Jersey firm has been sued over the failed use of an involuntary Chapter 7 petition.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In this week’s GC Mid-Atlantic column on Page 5, Steven D. Usdin and Nella M. Bloom write about a general counsel’s role in a financially distressed company.

In an E-Discovery column on Page 7, Alice E. Burns writes about using predictive coding as another tool in the arsenal.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal and Pa. Law Weekly

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story in today’s Legal is the second in reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel’s series on products liability, as she writes about how the growth of foreign class and mass actions are changing products law.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that Pennsylvania federal courts are at odds on the adoption of the Restatement (Third) of Torts. A Western District judge applied it in a recent products liability case, while the Middle District recently indicated that the Restatement (Second) is still the guiding force in the state.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that the ABA has blessed client disclosure to facilitate lateral moves. The ABA recently looked at giving some guidelines for how to share the information regarding client names to facilitate conflict checks with potential new firms.

In a From the Chief column on Page 3, Hank Grezlak writes that state courts must tread more carefully with the right to vote.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Law Office Technology column on Page 5, Thomas E. Groshens writes about moving to the cloud and details the capabilities of Evernote and the future of data management.

In a Legal Marketing column on Page 7, Stacy West Clark writes about implementing a 90-day plan to grow your practice.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the rare reargument grant in an Office of Open Records case involving the release of Governor Corbett’s calendar information. As Zack Needles writes, lawyers said it was “almost unprecedented” for the Commonwealth Court to grant reargument.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that an allocatur grant is being disputed in the wake of amendments made to the Medical Records Act.

On Page 3, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the Commonwealth Court has ruled that the calendars for Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter and the 17 members of City Council are exempt from the state’s Right-to-Know Law.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about lawyers who fail to pay their bills; James W. Cushing’s Real Estate column on Cheltenham Township’s dispute with the First Korean Church of New York Inc.; and a Personal Injury column on accident reconstruction in vehicle-pedestrian collisions.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.