Court Filings

The Superior Court affirmed the Orphans’ Court decree that denied Jacob Singer’s petition to compel burial arrangements for his father, Irvin Michael Singer. The Orphans’ Court had stayed burial pending a hearing after Jacob alleged his brother and executor, David Singer, planned a private burial and excluded siblings. The Superior Court held that a valid will appointed David as executor and expressly directed burial in the family plot, and that Section 305 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code is subject to a decedent’s valid will. Because the will gave the executor authority over burial, Jacob’s majority-next-of-kin argument failed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that when a contract is governed by the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), a consumer may rescind the home-improvement contract within three business days by giving actual notice of cancellation to the contractor even if that notice is not in writing. The Office of Attorney General sued Gillece for refusing to honor timely oral or other non-written cancellations; the trial court granted partial summary judgment and issued an injunction, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The Supreme Court concluded HICPA’s specific, later-enacted consumer-protection rescission rule controls over any general written-notice language in the older UTPCPL.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Gillece’s argument that a consumer’s oral cancellation of a home-improvement contract is ineffective unless followed by written notice. The court concluded that the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law are meant to protect consumers, and that requiring written follow-up would undermine that purpose when a seller knows a consumer asked to cancel. The court therefore held sellers must honor an oral cancellation for contracts covered by the home‑improvement law and emphasized best practices of documenting cancellations in writing.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's order on April 30, 2026, resolving an appeal brought by Elliot-Todd Parker Koger and Todd Elliott Koger Sr. (the "Koger Family") against multiple state entities and officials including the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency and county court officers. The Supreme Court issued a short per curiam order that simply states the Commonwealth Court's decision is affirmed, without extended opinion or additional reasoning in this document. The procedural posture shows this appeal follows the Commonwealth Court's September 5, 2025 order in a matter previously litigated and identified at this Court's earlier docket entries.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court and trial court orders dismissing Clearfield County’s lawsuit against construction professionals as time-barred by the 12-year construction statute of repose, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536. The County argued the common-law doctrine nullum tempus (no time runs against the sovereign) should toll the repose period, but the Court held nullum tempus cannot be used to defeat a statute of repose. Because a statute of repose abolishes causes of action after a fixed period and is not subject to tolling, the County’s claims, filed decades after construction finished, were jurisdictionally barred.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s decision that the Borough of West Chester’s municipal “stream protection fee” is a local tax, not a fee for service. The Borough had enacted the charge to fund stormwater management and compliance with federal and state stormwater regulations; universities (PASSHE and West Chester University) challenged it as an unlawful tax on exempt entities or as an improper fee. The Court held the Borough acted in its public capacity, providing a general public benefit and lacking a voluntary contractual relationship with property owners, so the charge functions as a tax from which the universities are immune.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the jury verdict for Thomas Chevrolet in Scott Martin’s wrongful-termination suit. Martin alleged he was fired for refusing his supervisor’s instructions to commit insurance fraud. The jury found for the employer, and the trial court denied post-trial relief. On appeal Martin argued the court erred by (1) refusing a jury instruction on the “cat’s paw” theory, (2) denying a juror challenge for cause, and (3) excluding evidence and an email about other employees’ post-termination allegations against the supervisor. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the court’s jury instructions, juror inquiry, or relevancy and prejudice rulings on evidence, and affirmed judgment.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s denial of Kurt Rillema’s motion to strike a November 18, 2024 default judgment entered in favor of C.M. Rillema argued the judgment should be stricken because of defects related to notice, the automatic bankruptcy stay, and the court’s allegedly excessive sanctioning for failure to comply with a prior order. The panel held the trial court properly denied relief because (1) the court could enter default judgment under Pa.R.C.P. 1037(c) for failure to answer, (2) the automatic stay rendered earlier court action void but did not extend Rillema’s time to answer, and (3) no fatal defect appeared on the face of the record to warrant striking the judgment.