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 Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice concurred with the majority in holding that the Borough’s stormwater charge functions as a tax rather than a fee because the proceeds fund broad, community-wide projects (tree planting, street sweeping, regrading alleys, rain gardens, curb extensions) that benefit the public generally rather than providing specific, measurable services to West Chester University. The concurrence explains that when charges fund generalized environmental and beautification projects remote from the university, the nexus to runoff from university property is too thin to qualify as a fee. The justice reserved judgment on different fact patterns where proceeds are spent solely on direct stormwater remediation or where charges are closely tied to individual property runoff.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court and upheld the trial court’s denial of the Commonwealth’s motion to nolle prosequi charges of negligent simple assault against former officer Stuart Harrison. The Commonwealth argued its key eyewitness had died and, without that testimony, it could not prove criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held the trial court applied the correct Reinhart standard — evaluating whether the Commonwealth’s stated reasons were valid and reasonable — and found other available witnesses provided sufficient evidence to allow trial, so the nolle prosequi was not justified.

Justice Dougherty concurred in part and dissented in part from the Court’s decision affirming the Superior Court’s judgment in Commonwealth v. Harrison. He would have reversed the Superior Court’s published opinion and remanded for application of this Court’s binding precedent (particularly Commonwealth v. Reinhart and Commonwealth v. DiPasquale) governing judicial review of a prosecutor’s motion to nolle prosequi. He criticizes the Superior Court for adopting a de novo standard for review and the majority for affirming on an alternate ground and addressing issues the Commonwealth did not raise, while warning about separation-of-powers concerns and unresolved practical consequences of the decision.

The Superior Court affirmed the denial of Tyrell Giles’s PCRA petition challenging his convictions for aggravated assault and related offenses. Giles filed a late (nunc pro tunc) post-conviction petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting when witnesses testified that he was on state parole. The court held the petition was untimely and Giles failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to the PCRA time bar, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review the claim. The Superior Court therefore affirmed denial of relief, noting the lower court’s merits ruling was unnecessary.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that cast vote records (CVRs) are not the "contents of ballot boxes and voting machines" under Section 308 (25 P.S. § 2648) of the Election Code, and therefore are not exempt from public disclosure. The court rejected the Commonwealth Court’s view that CVRs are the digital equivalent of machine contents and found the statute’s plain language dispositive. The Court noted that if policy concerns exist about disclosure, the proper remedy is legislative change rather than judicial construction of a statute enacted in 1937.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a juvenile court order changing 13-year-old C.B.’s permanency goal from reunification to subsidized permanent legal custodianship (SPLC). The stepfather, I.Q., appealed and appointed counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. The appellate court found counsel complied with Anders procedural requirements, reviewed the record, and held that the juvenile court’s factual findings and legal conclusions — including that placement remained necessary, reunification efforts were thwarted by the parent’s noncooperation, and C.B. had a strong bond with her foster custodian — were supported by the record. The court granted counsel’s withdrawal and affirmed the goal change order.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Edward Zealor’s convictions for fifty counts of possessing child sexual abuse material. Zealor had moved to suppress evidence obtained after the Commonwealth used administrative subpoenas under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5743.1 to obtain subscriber and router log information tying his shared IP/port to torrent files containing child pornography. The court held Zealor lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber, payment, and IP/port/torrent connection data, and even if some non‑constitutional statutory overreach occurred, suppression is not an available remedy under the Act. The convictions and sentence were therefore affirmed.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of Jason Harding’s first PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing. Harding sought post-conviction relief asserting layered ineffective-assistance claims (trial, direct-appeal, and PCRA counsel) and other errors stemming from trial events (jury delay/mistrial, admission of a statement to police, counsel’s witness choices, and his decision to testify). The court found the claims either procedurally waived, meritless, or unprejudicial: the delay did not prejudice Harding, his custodial statement was a spontaneous utterance not requiring Miranda warnings, failure to call a particular witness would not have helped his self-defense case, and his decision to testify was knowing and voluntary.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed Hakime Cooper’s conviction and sentence after a bench trial. Cooper was convicted of retaliation against a witness/victim and harassment for threatening the victim in a courthouse hallway after the victim testified against her. The court held the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence because Cooper and two companions together made multiple threats, satisfying the statute’s requirement of a course of conduct or repeated threatening acts. The court therefore upheld Cooper’s six- to twelve-month sentence for retaliation; no additional penalty was imposed for harassment.

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.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a Philadelphia County PCRA court order granting Jamal R. Sanders a new trial. Sanders had been convicted in 1998 of third-degree murder and related offenses based largely on testimony that he had access to the gun later used by a co-defendant. After decades in custody, a witness (Shawn Clark) submitted an affidavit recanting trial testimony and stating detectives coerced him; Clark later died. The PCRA court found the recantation admissible under the statement-against-interest exception and likely to produce a different verdict; the Superior Court agreed and affirmed.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the convictions and sentences of Kylen Pratt, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, abuse of a corpse, and tampering with evidence for the death and burning of Naasire Johnson. The court rejected challenges to (1) admission of a detective’s chart summarizing voluminous cell-phone timing data, finding the summary met the rules for admissibility; (2) admission of appellant’s Google searches, finding they were relevant to his state of mind and not unduly prejudicial; and (3) the discretionary imposition of consecutive sentences, finding no abuse of sentencing discretion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an application to correct the record under Pa.R.A.P. 1926 and affirmed the Commonwealth Court's March 31, 2026 order concerning the nomination petition of Karl Morris as the Democratic candidate for the Third Congressional District. The matter was an appeal by Karl Morris from the Commonwealth Court decision; the Supreme Court reviewed the procedural request to alter the record and declined it, leaving the lower court's decision intact.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the juvenile court's November 7, 2025 order that declined to terminate court supervision of dependent adult N.L. at age 21 and ordered York County Children and Youth Services (CYS) to fund N.L.’s placement until social security benefits were obtained. The juvenile court found that although CYS had developed a transition plan, the plan lacked an enforceable funding source because N.L.’s guardian had not secured benefits. The Superior Court held that a dependency court may continue supervision past 21 when a transition plan is not complete, particularly when income to support placement is not in place.

The Superior Court considered James Smith’s challenge to the sufficiency of evidence for two convictions of unlawful contact with a minor after the Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Strunk. The Court concluded Smith’s verbal statements to the victims — instructing them to perform oral sex and directing one to lie on a table immediately before assaulting her — were communications that induced or otherwise furthered sexual exploitation and therefore satisfied the statute’s communicative requirement. The court affirmed Smith’s convictions and judgment of sentence.

The Superior Court affirmed Jonathan Rivera’s convictions and sentence following his second jury trial for multiple sexual offenses against four minor girls. Rivera argued the trial court vindictively imposed a longer sentence after he successfully appealed his first convictions and that applying a later-enacted felony grading to one corruption-of-minors count violated the ex post facto clauses. The court found a presumption of vindictiveness attached but held it was rebutted by objective new information at resentencing (an SVP designation, victims’ updated testimony and impact, and Rivera’s trial testimony showing lack of remorse). The court also found the record supported offenses occurring after the statute’s effective date, so no ex post facto violation occurred.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied appellants' challenge and affirmed the Commonwealth Court's April 2, 2026 order. The Court granted the appellants' request to supplement the record but upheld the lower court's decision that the candidate Al Buchtan’s nomination petition stands. The Court also ordered that Buchtan’s petition be treated as amended to list his legal residence as 100 Betty Boulevard, Carmichaels, Pennsylvania 15320, Greene County. Three justices recorded their dissent; a full opinion will follow explaining the detailed rationale.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's April 1, 2026 order upholding a decision involving Taiba Sultana's nomination petition for the Democratic nomination for state senator in the 18th Legislative District for the May 19, 2026 primary. The appeal by Taiba Sultana was considered and denied, and her separate application for a stay was dismissed as moot. One justice did not participate. The court issued a short per curiam order adopting the lower court's disposition without extended opinion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed an appeal by Christina Marie Seeling from a Commonwealth Court order dated March 24, 2026, concerning the nomination petition of Robyn Bird for the Republican nomination for the State House 177th District in the May 19, 2026 primary. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision dated April 9, 2026, affirmed the Commonwealth Court's order. No further reasoning or factual detail is included in the short order beyond the affirmance.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an appellant’s motion to supplement the record, noted jurisdiction, and affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s March 26, 2026 order. The case concerned an objection to Summer Lee’s nomination petition for the Democratic primary for the 12th U.S. Congressional District. The Supreme Court issued a brief per curiam order on April 9, 2026, leaving the lower court’s decision in place without adding materials to the record.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a per curiam order dated April 8, 2026, affirmed the Commonwealth Court's April 2, 2026 order in the appeal concerning Tony Dphax King's nomination petition as the Democratic candidate for the 188th Legislative District. The Supreme Court reviewed the lower court's decision and concluded no basis existed to disturb it, resulting in affirmation of the Commonwealth Court's ruling. No additional reasoning or opinion text is provided in the document.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence imposed on Kevin Lee Steager after he pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offenses against his daughter. Steager received an aggregate term of 4½ to 9 years’ imprisonment and 4 years’ probation, and was later designated a sexually violent predator (SVP). Appellate counsel sought to withdraw under Anders; the court found counsel’s submission compliant and conducted an independent review. The court held that challenges to the plea, merger, sentencing legality, SVP designation, and discretionary sentencing were either waived or lacked merit, so the appeal was frivolous and the sentence was affirmed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the candidate Mark Lavelle leave to file an amended jurisdictional statement and to supplement his brief after receiving trial notes, but otherwise affirmed the Commonwealth Court's prior order. The appeal concerned Lavelle's nomination petition for the Democratic primary for the 177th Legislative District. The court noted jurisdiction and allowed procedural relief to complete the appellate record, while concluding that the Commonwealth Court's disposition should stand. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Brobson, joined by Justices Dougherty and Mundy.