This month, the Court issued 12 precedential opinions and 7 orders granting allocatur.

On the opinion side, perhaps the most widely applicable case is Alexander, which holds that all warrantless automobile searches in Pennsylvania must be supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances. The Court's decision recognizes the limitations of an earlier case by a then-very politically conservative court which purported to adopt the federal rule, which allows searches based on probable cause alone, despite years of Pennsylvania precedent for the rule requiring both. It's not only excellently written by Justice Donohue, but also highlights an important principle in Pennsylvania constitutional jurisprudence: rights against unreasonable searches and seizures exist for privacy's sake, not just as a deterrent against police misconduct. It also serves as a reminder that federalism is not always politically conservative, and that the judicial activists are not always the political liberals.

Also interesting is Justice Wecht's concurrence in Peck, which gently expresses some degree of frustration with the overuse of the term “absurd,” this time in the context of statutory construction. Justice Wecht cites to no other than the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Professor Bryan Garner for the proposition that the canon of construction against absurdity is overplayed, and should be circumscribed to situations that are actually absurd, not just contrary to how the litigator would prefer them to be.

Two thoughts: first, given that it is much more difficult to explain why a particular interpretation or result is merely bad analytically, or contrary to legislative intent and purpose, it is a common argument of last resort (often near a filing deadline) to simply shout that it is absurd and move on to the next issue. Keen advocates should take note and pull back on this particular epithet.

On the allocatur side, perhaps the entire criminal appellate/post-conviction defense bar will be keeping watch for Bradley, which seems to signal that the Court may be willing to undo decades of precedent artificially making it functionally impossible to challenge the effectiveness of one's post-conviction counsel by creating a mechanism to do so. The decisions setting up the proverbial roadblocks came initially at a time when the Court, statutorily obliged to review all capital PCRA direct appeals, were essentially inundated with them to the point that its law-developing function was undermined. But they were never particularly persuasive in their reasoning, and this Court has been revisiting them and hewing closer to the PCRA's text.

Precedential Opinions

• Graham v. Check, 42 WAP 2019 (Opinion by Wecht, J.) (providing an update and illustration of the factors for the “sudden emergency” rule in the context of a vehicle-pedestrian intersection)

  • See also Dissenting Opinion by Dougherty, J.

• Leight v. University of Pittsburgh Physicians, 35 WAP 2019 (holding physicians are not liable under the MHPA for considering, but not formalizing the prerequisites for, an involuntary emergency examination)

  • See also Concurring Opinion by Dougherty, J.

  • See also Concurring Opinion by Wecht, J.

  • See also Dissenting Opinion by Mundy, J.

• S.B. v. S.S., 39 WAP 2019 (Opinion by Baer, J.) (holding that a gag order in a custody case is not a content-based restriction of speech, but, rather, a means-based one and finding it constitutional)

  • See also Concurring Opinion by Saylor, C.J.

  • See also Dissenting Opinion by Wecht, J.

• Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Pa. Dept. of Corr., 76 MAP 2019 (Opinion by Mundy, J.) (holding that the Right-to-Know Law permits an award of attorneys fees where an agency acts in bad faith in denying access to records)

  • See also Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Wecht, J.

  • See also Dissenting Opinion by Dougherty, J.

• Commonwealth v. Lehman, 47 MAP 2019 (Opinion by Dougherty, J.) (holding costs of resentencing necessitated by unconstitutional initial sentence may not be imposed upon a defendant)

• Woodford v. Commonwealth, 65 MAP 2019 (Opinion by Dougherty, J.) (holding the Insurance Department Act of 1921 does not permit fees in addition to commission in non-commercial insurance transactions)

  • See also Concurring Opinion by Donohue, J.

  • See also Concurring Opinion by Wecht, J.

  • See also Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Todd, J.

• Commonwealth v. Peck, 75 MAP 2019 (Opinion by Donohue, J.) (holding that the Commonwealth could not sustain its burden of proof for the offense of drug delivery resulting in death where the underlying drug delivery occurred in Maryland)

  • See also Concurring Opinion by Wecht, J.

• In re: Passarelli Family Trust, 71 MAP 2019 (Opinion by Donohue, J.) (holding that hold that a settlor averring fraud in the inducement of an irrevocable trust must prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of common law fraud)

  • See also Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Saylor, C.J.

• Clark v. Stover, 2 MAP 2020 (Opinion by Saylor, C.J.) (declining to adopt the continuous representation rule for attorney-malpractice cases)

• Raynor v. D'Annunzio, 35 EAP 2019 (Opinion by Dougherty, J.) (holding that intra-case motions do not constitute proceedings for purposes of the Dragonetti Act)

  • See also Concurring Opinion by Wecht, J.

  • See also Dissenting Opinion by Saylor, C.J.

• Commonwealth v. Alexander, 30 EAP 2019 (Opinion by Donohue, J.) (holding that an automobile search must be supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution)

  • See also Concurring Opinion by Baer, J.

  • See also Dissenting Opinion by Saylor, C.J.

  • See also Dissenting Opinion by Dougherty, J.

  • See also Dissenting Opinion by Mundy, J.

• Bourgeois v. Snow Time, Inc. 50 MAP 2019 (Opinion by Mundy, J.) (holding the Superior Court erroneously disregarded expert reports in a personal injury action on the ground that they neither set forth a particular duty nor defined the standard of care)

Allocatur Grants

• Commonwealth v. Jordan, 269 WAL 2020 (granting review to consider the validity of inconsistent verdicts in consolidated jury/bench trials)

  • See also Superior Court Opinion by Shogan, J.

• Mohn v. Bucks County Republican Comm., 156 MAL 2020 (granting review to consider the justiciability of certain intra-political-party disputes)

  • See also Commonwealth Court Opinion by Wojcik, J.

• Commonwealth v. Dixon, 207 WAL 2020 (granting review to consider issues regarding special interrogatories regarding the grading of a count of witness intimidation)

  • See also Superior Court Opinion by Olson, J.

• Commonwealth v. Bradley, 230 EAL 2020 (granting review to consider whether to adopt a more meaningful mechanism for the vindication of the right to effective PCRA counsel)

  • See also Superior Court Opinion by McCaffery, J.

• Commonwealth v. Kale, 302-303 MAL 2020 (granting review to consider whether the Pennsylvania State Police have a right to be served with any petition seeking to declare that an individual is not subject to sexual offender registration requirements)

  • See also Superior Court Opinion by Musmanno, J.

• Commonwealth v. Purnell, 351 MAL 2020 (granting review to consider whether and under what circumstances a child victim may utilize an emotional support pet while testifying)

  • See also Superior Court Opinion by Colins, J.

• In re: Trust of Ashton, 203 EAL 2020 (granting review to consider whether a beneficiary has automatic standing to challenge all of a trustee's breaches of fiduciary duties toward the trust or must demonstrate standing to challenge the trustee's particular breaches)

  • See also Superior Court Opinion by Dubow, J.