Featured Amicus Briefs
Sectors: Business, Health Care
Sullivan v Werner
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.
Status: n/a
Sector: Business
Bert vs Turk
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.
Status: n/a
Sectors: Business, Community, Health Care
Marion V Bryn Mawr Trust
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?
Status: filed
Sectors: Business, Community, Health Care
Ruffing V Wipro, LTD
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.
Status: n/a
Sectors: Business, Health Care
Bert V Turk
At issue:
Unfair competition and Puntive damage ratio calculations.
Status: n/a
Sectors: Business, Health Care
Spencer vs. Johnson
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.
Status: PCCJR’s application for leave to file an amicus brief requesting an en banc rehearing by the Superior Court was denied
Sectors: Business, Health Care
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation
(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
Status: Opinion issued on March 24, 2021
Sectors: Business, Health Care
Dockery v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital
At issue is the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s Medical Liability Venue Statute and Medical Liability Venue Rule. The decision of the Superior Court, while not directly on the merits, leaves the medical liability venue rule and statute standing. The Superior Court’s decision is a victory against allowing venue shopping to return to medical liability cases.
Status: Opinion issued February 22, 2021. The Superior Court denied Dockery’s application for reargument on April 26, 2021.
Sectors: Business, Health Care
Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
Whether the Superior Court improperly held that a strict liability standard applies to a claim under the “catch-all” provision of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1, et seq., as amended in 1996, even though the provision expressly requires proof of “fraudulent or deceptive conduct.”
Status: Opinion issued February 18, 2021
Sectors: Business, Health Care
Mortimer v. McCool
Whether, in this matter of first impression, the Supreme Court should adopt the "enterprise theory" or "single entity" theory of piercing the corporate veil when two or more sister companies operate as a single corporate combine?
Status: Opinion Issued July 21, 2021. The Court declined to adopt a form of enterprise liability for piercing the corporate veil, saying the facts of this case would not allow it. The court did however invite lower courts to take up the enterprise liability doctrine when appropriate under the facts.