text:
    158 A.3d 1236
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Kenneth F. SODOMSKY, Petitioner
    No. 319 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 5, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM

license: Public Domain

text:
    158 A.3d 1236
    Stacy Parks MILLER, District Attorney, Petitioner v. COUNTY OF CENTRE; Sean P. McGraw; Andrew Shubin, Attorney at Law, d/b/a/ The Law Office of Andrew Shubin; Bernard F. Cantorna, Esquire, Bryant & Cantorna, P.C.; and John Does 1-5, Respondents Stacy Parks Miller, District Attorney, Petitioner v. County of Centre; Sean P. McGraw; Andrew Shubin, Attorney at Law, d/b/a/ The Law Office of Andrew Shubin; Bernard F. Cantorna, Esquire, Bryant & Cantorna, P.C.; and John Does 1-5, Respondents
    No. 263 MAL 2016
    No. 264 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 5, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Do district attorneys and their offices constitute “judicial agencies” as defined under Section 102 of the Right-to-Know-Law, 65 P.S. § 67.102?


text:
    158 A.3d 1237
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Keith E. FULMER, Petitioner
    No. 249 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 5, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

Justices Donohue and Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.


text:
    158 A.3d 1237
    NORTHERN FORESTS II, INC., Petitioner v. KETA REALTY COMPANY, Keta Gas and Oil Company, Keta Gas and Oil Corporation, George C. Levin, United States Bankruptcy Trustee and Manufacturers Light and Heat Company, Their Successors and Assigns and Anyone Claiming By, Through or Under Them, or Any of Them, Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC, Southwestern Energy Production Company, Ronald Sawyer, Kathleen Sawyer, Dale Black, Lori Black, Michael Centini, Karen Centini, Vince Dandini, Sara Dandini, Edgar Shenk, Elaine Shenk, David Haus, Sharon Haus and Gayla Loch, Ultra Resources, Inc., International Development Corporation, Wevco Production, Inc., Jackson Corner Sportsmen, Inc., Samuel Rockey, Karen Rockey, Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc., Lancaster Exploration & Development Company, LLC, Trustees of Thomas E. Proctor Heirs Trust, Trustees of the Margaret O. F. Proctor Trust, Forest Resources, LLC, Kocjancic Family Limited Partnership, Harold H. Wolfinger, Jr., William L. Hemenway, Harvey Hinman, Sarah C. Preston, Linda Davidge, Pennlyco, Ltd., Glen W. Heffelfiner, Michael E. Dapaoli, John F. Gerrity, Joan M. Gerrity, Steven M. Strouse, Renee M. Strouse, David W. Critics, Angela R. Critics, Mark S. Conrad, Dolores Conrad, David B. Dusel, Mary Louise Waters, Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation, Enerplus Resources, Brooke E. Fuller, Ricky E. Young, Nadine C. Young, Stephen Matto, Kim L. Matto, John F. Knopp, Sandra J. Knopp, James D. Weatherwax, Nicole R. Weatherwax, Duth Hill Hunting Club, Atlantic Hydrocarbon, LLC, Exco Production Company (PA) LLC, Exco Resources, Inc., BG Production Company (PA) LLC, Wade E. June, Melissa L. June, Michael J. Snyder, Timothy C. Bowen, Therese L. Bowen, Paul D. Crissman, Mark A. Mcgovern, Ronda J. McGovern, James A. Robinson, Cogan House Township, Mountain Development Group, David Rockey, Ohio Kentucky Oil Corporation, titsui E & P USA, LLC, GCO Minerals Company, Danna Webber, Travis Crooks, Francine Crooks, Cynthia Stantion-McKenney (POA Terry Geise) and as To Any and All Entities Which Claim Any Interest Whatsoever To Subject Matter of This Suit, Respondents
    No. 197 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 5, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1238
    James ARCHER, Petitioner v. Mark GARMAN Superintendent of the State Correctional Institute at Rockview, Respondent
    No. 139 EM 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 11, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2016, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Application for an Immediate Hearing are DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1238
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Leon OWENS, Petitioner
    No. 232 EAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 11, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1239
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Ronald OCKIMEY, Petitioner
    No. 230 EAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 11, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1239
    Morris WILLIS, Petitioner v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, Respondent
    No. 137 EM 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 11, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2016, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief, to the extent it seeks mandamus relief, are GRANTED. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to adjudicate Petitioner’s pending filing within 90 days.

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to serve this order on the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.


text:
    158 A.3d 1239
    Daryl COOK, Petitioner v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent
    No. 140 EM 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 11, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2016, the Application for Leave to File Original Process, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or Writ of Mandamus, and the Motion for Speedy Release or Relief are DISMISSED. See Commonwealth v. Cooper, 611 Pa. 437, 27 A.3d 994 (2009) (explaining that hybrid presentation is not permitted). The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward the filings to counsel of record.


text:
    158 A.3d 1240
    Christopher MENDOZA, Petitioner v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, Respondent
    No. 136 EM 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 11, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2016, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1240
    Allen L. FEINGOLD, Petitioner v. Eric FEDER, Director Office of Judicial Records (formerly, Office of the Prothonotary of Philadelphia County), Respondent
    No. 116 EM 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 11, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1240
    OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondent v. Allen FEINGOLD, Petitioner
    No. 126 EM 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 11, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2016, the Request to Submit Reply is GRANTED, and the “Appeal” is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1241
    Pamela ANGELL, Individually and as The Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas W. Bauer, Jr., Deceased v. James F. DERENO, Ross Township, and West View Borough Petition of: Ross Township
    No. 228 WAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1241
    Pamela ANGELL, Individually and as The Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas W. Bauer, Jr., Deceased v. James F. DERENO, Ross Township, and West View Borough Petition of: West View Borough
    No. 217 WAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1241
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Vernon E. MCGINNIS, Jr., Petitioner
    No. 207 WAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED,


text:
    158 A.3d 1242
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Jeremy Travis WOODARD, Respondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Keith Reed, Respondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Joshua N. Cambric, Respondent
    No. 157 WAL 2016
    No. 158 WAL 2016
    No. 159 WAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and the Petition for Remand are DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1242
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Earl JOHNSON, Petitioner
    No. 298 EAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1242
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Bernard JACKSON, Petitioner
    No. 263 EAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1243
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Lance E. MASSE, Petitioner
    No. 238 EAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1243
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Derrick T. WALKER, Petitioner
    No. 257 EAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1243
    KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION, Respondent v. Marshall L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner
    No. 247 EAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1243
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Hector B. GERMOSEN, Petitioner
    No. 392 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1244
    David E. COOKE, Petitioner v. Evelyn A. COOKE, Thomas D. Cooke, Jr., and Ducky’s Boats, Inc., Respondents
    No. 390 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1244
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Derrick Anthony CLAY, Petitioner
    No. 380 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1244
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Jesse Earl AUL, Petitioner
    No. 327 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.


text:
    158 A.3d 1245
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, v. $34,440.00 U.S. CURRENCY Petition of: Rafael Falette
    No. 344 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

1. If the rebuttable presumption under Section 6801 is established, can a finding that there is a “substantial nexus” be defeated by evidence of record before the burden is shifted back to the claimant to establish that he or she is the innocent owner?
2. Where the rebuttable presumption establishes that currency is presumed to be proceeds of selling controlled substances, but the Commonwealth’s evidence is inconsistent with selling of controlled substances, can the presumption be defeated by the Commonwealth’s own evidence?


text:
    158 A.3d 1245
    GREEN TREE SERVICING MORTGAGE CO. v. Gennaro RAUSO, as Mark Ferreri’s and Tri State Investments 1, LLC’s Assignee Petition of: Gennaro Rauso
    No. 373 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and the Application for Substitution of Parties are DENIED.


text:
    158 A.3d 1245
    Scott R. BLAKE, Respondent v. STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner
    No. 208 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    October 13, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

a. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in its analysis under this Court’s decisions and accepted judicial practices relating to statutory construction when it construed the intent of the General Assembly by using terms from federal legislation despite express language in the Pennsylvania statute that the Pennsylvania statute is the exclusive law to be applied when granting veterans’ preference, when Commonwealth Court construed a term not applicable to the case before it and analyzed legislative intent utilizing the wrong date that the term was added to the Pennsylvania legislation, and when Commonwealth Court quoted the language of the federal statute incorrectly and then used that erroneous language to determine legislative intent?
b. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred when it determined that prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases requiring a reasonable relation between military training and service, which is the basis for awarding veterans’ preference, and the preference awarded to soldiers in selection for employment in public positions in the Commonwealth, are limited to facial challenges to veterans’ preference and do not apply to as-applied challenges to veterans’ preference?