Amicus Briefs

PCCJR Argued that the court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal from the trial court's collateral order staying the proceedings and compelling arbitration.

PCCJR Argued that punitive damages should be calculated on a per judgement basis, as opposed to per defendent, and a punitive to compensatory ratio of 9 to 1 or higher, was unconstitutional.

To PCCJR great disappointment, a majority of the US Supreme Court has upheld the PA long arm statute requiring consent to jurisdiction to do business in PA. The PA Supreme Court declared the statute unconstitutional based on a line of US Supreme Court jurisdictional decisions involving due process.

PCCJR filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court in support of the PA Supreme Court’s holding in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern. This is a big blow to jurisdictional jurisprudence and due process. Now, companies with little to no substantial contacts with Pennsylvania will continue to be hauled into PA and of course, the Philadelphia court system.

Issue: Did the lower court’s award of attorneys fees violate the American Rule that a party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees absent (1) an express statutory provision to the contrary; (2) a “clear” agreement – i.e., an unambiguous agreement capable of no other reasonable construction – to the contrary; or (3) some other established exception.

Issue: Did the Superior Court err when it held that a parent or guardian could not bind their minor child to an arbitration agreement as it violates the right to a jury trial?

The issue is:

Does the felony murder rule prevent a convicted murderer from seeking damages in the form of compensation for injuries the convict allegedly sustained as the result negligent medical treatment, when such treatment allegedly did not prevent him from committing the act of murder?

Summary: In this brief, PCCJR defends the constitutionality of legislatively impose caps on damages in cases brought against the Commonwealth and local governments, in Pennsylvania.

Issue: Can a plaintiff sue a corporate defendant in a venue with which the corporation’s only relationship is an insubstantial and de minimis portion of its overall business and operations and where the venue lacks any other relationship either to the claim or to the other parties?

This case raises the question of whether a jury should hear evidence of industry or governmental standards in design defect product liability cases. The Superior Court excluded this evidence even though the Tincher holding adopted negligence-based risk-utility analyses for design defect product liability cases.

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PENNSYLVANIA COALITION FOR CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM, AMERICAN PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURNCE ASSOCIATION, PENNSYLVANIA CHAMBER OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTUERS ASSOCIATION, INSURANCE FEDERATION OF PENNSYLVANIA @ LEADING AGE PA IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS.