Amicus Briefs

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.

UPDATED

Issue: Should Pennsylvania recognize the tort of aiding and abetting fraud?

If the cause of action of aiding and abetting fraud is recognized, must a party have actual knowledge of the underlying fraud?

This case was filed in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. PCCJR urges the court to recognize US Supreme Court precedent and reject the concept of jurisdiction by virtue of registering to do business in Pennsylvania.

At issue:

Unfair competition and Puntive damage ratio calculations.

The brief requests a reargument before an en banc panel of the Superior Court to overturn a decision of a Superior Court panel. The Court’s opinion in Spencer v Johnson concluded that the Fair Share Act’s provision apportioning damages based on the percentage of a defendant’s fault does not apply unless the plaintiff in the case is contributorily negligent. The court wrongly concluded that the Fair Share Act does not apply if the plaintiff has zero negligence.

(1) Are claims by the commonwealth, brought on behalf of private landowners against natural gas extractors alleging that the extractors used deceptive, misleading, and unfair tactics in securing natural gas leases from landowners, cognizable under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law? (2) May the commonwealth pursue antitrust remedies under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law? Update: The court agreed with PCCJR's position that the UTPA and CPL does not protect sellers