Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Snyder v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 23, 2015

SCOTT SNYDER, Petitioner
v.
GEORGE M. THOMAS III, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE M. THOMAS, JR., ALSO KNOWN AS GEORGE THOMAS, DECEASED, AND GEORGE M. THOMAS III, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY L. THOMAS, DECEASED, Respondent

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court filed April 9, 2014 at No. 407 WDA 2013, reversing the Order of the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas filed February 13, 2013 at No. 11091 of 2010, C.A.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, in light of its failure to credit the trial court's factual findings, which are supported by the record. See Fizzano Brothers Concrete Products, Inc. v. XLN, Inc., 615 Pa. 242, 42 A.3d 951, 970-74 (Pa. 2012). The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for consideration of the other issues not addressed in respondent's original appeal. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Mr. Chief Justice Saylor files a Dissenting Statement in which Madame Justice Todd joins.

DISSENTING STATEMENT

MR. SAYLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE

I respectfully dissent from the majority's summary disposition of this case on the allocatur docket. The Court's Internal Operating Procedures require that " [a] per curiam order granting allowance of appeal and reversing an order of the lower court must cite to controlling legal authority or provide a full explanation of the reasons for reversal." Supreme Court IOP § 6(B). The rule is plainly intended to provide litigants with a reasonably developed explanation as to why the Court is exercising its discretion to disturb the status quo attained in an as-of-right direct appeal. In this regard, the majority's mere citation to a general legal principle, without any attempt to explain how that principle applies to the particular facts under review, is facially deficient.

Todd, Madame Justice joins this dissenting statement.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.