Background: [J-65-2025] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ. SAMSUNG FIRE AND MARINE : No. 61 EAP 2024 INSURANCE CO., LTD (U.S. BRANCH); : HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED : Petition for Certification of Question INSURANCE COMPANY : of State Law from the United States : Court of Appeals…
Held: Conclusion For the reasons provided, we hold that neither an insurer’s duty to defend nor its duty to indemnify is abrogated on the basis of public policy when the insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from sex trafficking. Given our answer to the first certified question, we do not address the remaining question and return the case to…
Background: Dominick A. Occhicone was sentenced to death for the 1986 first-degree murder of his former girlfriend’s mother. After his former girlfriend refused to speak with him, Occhicone returned to her family’s home armed with a handgun, cut the telephone lines, shot her father outside, broke into the home, and shot her mother four times. A…
Held: The Florida Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Occhicone’s public-records request because he failed to connect the requested materials to a colorable postconviction claim. His effort to investigate whether a claim might exist was the type of fishing expedition Rule 3.852 does not authorize. The denial also did not violate…
Background: Robert R. Young Sr. executed a formal will in 2000 that divided his assets between two of his children, Raymond E. Young and Dianne M. Parker, left Young’s Lobster Pound to Raymond, and gave his estranged son Robert F. Young Jr. one dollar. The day before Robert Sr. died in 2017, Robert Jr. told him…
Held: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. It held that the Probate Court properly considered evidence beyond the handwritten document when determining testamentary intent. Maine’s Probate Code expressly allows intent that a document constitute a will to be established by extrinsic evidence, without limiting such evidence to documents containing ambiguous language. Robert Jr. and Parker also failed to preserve their evidentiary…
Background: Jefferson Township and several landowners petitioned for improvements to Cole Ditch, which runs through Licking and Franklin Counties. The proposed work was intended to alleviate stormwater flooding and was estimated to cost approximately $3.2 million, with costs assessed against landowners in the watershed. A joint board of commissioners from both counties found after the first…
Held: The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Tenth District. It held that R.C. 6131.25(A), together with R.C. 6133.03(D), permits an affected landowner to appeal any order of a joint board of county commissioners, including an order issued after the first hearing that directs the county engineer to proceed with project planning. The association qualified as an affected landowner because it…
Background: Joanne Mondragon sued on behalf of her five-year-old, nonverbal son, J.W., after another student repeatedly struck him, pulled his hair, and stabbed him in the back with a pencil during a roughly 23-minute ride on a Colonial School District bus. The bus carried 12 to 13 students with special needs and was staffed by a…
Held: The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the District’s hiring and assignment decisions were discretionary because they required judgment about the level of supervision needed and which aide could provide it. Although a school’s general duty to supervise students is ministerial, the manner and method of supervision are discretionary. A regulation requiring bus aides to assist students as prescribed…
Background: When D.E. was twelve years old, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, second-degree assault, and two theft offenses arising from an encounter outside a Baltimore City convenience store. Because robbery is a crime of violence, that allegation brought D.E. within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under the Juvenile Justice Reform…
Held: The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed. It held that jurisdiction attached when the State filed a petition alleging a qualifying crime of violence and related offenses arising from the same incident. Under Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-8A-07(a), that jurisdiction continues until the child turns twenty-one unless terminated sooner. A finding that the child was not involved…
Background: A jury convicted Katie Irene Garding in 2011 of vehicular homicide while under the influence, failing to stop at an accident scene involving an injured person, and driving without a valid license. She received a total prison sentence of 40 years. After her convictions and denial of state postconviction relief were affirmed, Garding sought federal…
Held: The Montana Supreme Court held that Garding had no right to judicial substitution after the Ninth Circuit reversed the federal habeas grant. The reversal eliminated the conditional writ and the basis for a renewed prosecution or retrial. Because no new criminal proceeding remained pending, the statutory events triggering substitution never occurred. Although the District Court should have addressed the pending…
Background: The Maui Planning Commission amended its Special Management Area rules in August 2024. The rules created fifteen categorical exclusions from the Coastal Zone Management Act’s definition of “development,” allowed previously approved or exempt activities to continue, be repaired, or be renovated within the undefined “same scope,” and required only a draft environmental assessment with an…
Held: The supreme court affirmed. It held that MCC § 12-202-11.1 exceeded the Commission’s statutory authority because the Commission could streamline permitting but could not categorically remove activities from the CZMA assessment that determines whether they constitute “development.” Fourteen exemptions conflicted with the statute’s broad definition and environmental-impact safeguard; the Native Hawaiian cultural-practices exemption used an appropriate environmental standard but was…
Background: Glendale Shooting Club acquired property next to the Racine family’s property in 1976 for use as a gun club and firing range. After the Racines complained that gunfire could be heard loudly at their residence throughout the day and night, a circuit court entered a permanent injunction in 1987 restricting Glendale’s competitions, operating hours, and…
Held: The Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the circuit court misstated Missouri precedent when it said the statutory change, “in and of itself,” made continued enforcement inequitable. A change in fact or law alone is neither necessary nor sufficient for relief under Rule 74.06(b)(5); the circuit court must weigh the equities in light of the case’s circumstances.
Background: Six-year-old Ethan Woodruff suffered serious and disabling injuries in a three-vehicle collision while riding in a Dorel Juvenile Group Pronto booster seat. The booster seat was being used with a Ford seatbelt extender that Ethan’s father had installed to address difficulty reaching the recessed buckle in the family’s Nissan Juke. The extender was intended for…
Held: The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed. It held that Coffman does not categorically bar a failure-to-warn claim whenever a manufacturer’s product is used with a product made by someone else. Coffman addressed the narrower situation in which asbestos-containing materials made and sold by third parties were integrated after sale into the defendants’ equipment.
Background: Patrick M. Hogan and Amanda H. Wong married in October 2018, separated in May 2021, and filed competing divorce claims that July. Because they could not agree on distributing their marital assets, a Family Court general magistrate held a trial concerning, among other property, stock options and restricted stock units Wong received through her employment…
Held: The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed. Although marital assets ordinarily should be valued as of the trial date, the Court held that compelling circumstances supported valuing the disputed stock awards as of the parties’ separation. Those circumstances included the marriage’s short duration, Hogan’s fault and credibility issues, the awards’ role as part of Wong’s employment compensation, and Hogan’s having moved…
Background: Six related Allstate insurance companies sued several medical practices and physicians, alleging that the defendants conspired to obtain more than $1.7 million in personal injury protection benefits through fraudulent and misleading medical claims. Allstate asserted claims under New Jersey’s Insurance Fraud Prevention Act and Anti-Racketeering Act.
Held: In a per curiam opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Robert J. Gilson’s published Appellate Division opinion. Claims brought under the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act or New Jersey RICO do not fall within AICRA’s PIP-arbitration framework.