Authors: Nathan Fox, Brian Guthrie, Bill O’Shea
State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court declines to hear appeal of three anti-maskers who refused to leave school board meeting - News Item
- Pa. Supreme Court declines to hear write-in appeal in 117th District primary race - fox56.com
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Key Provisional Ballots in Tight GOP Primary - Democracy Docket
- HD-117: State Supreme Court Denies Cabell Appeal; State House Race Nearing End - PoliticsPA
- State Supreme Court declines to hear Cabell appeal about write-in votes in the 117th District Republican primary - cnhinews.com
- PA Supreme Court declines to hear write-in appeal sought by Mike Cabell - The Times Leader
- Pa. Supreme Court to hear appeal over provisional ballots in narrow Luzerne County House race - Pennsylvania Capital-Star
- Tennessee wildlife agency won’t appeal ruling that limits surveillance of private lands - Chattanooga Times Free Press
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal over two provisional ballots in Cabell/Walsh race - The Times Leader
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Hear Case on Pittsburgh's 'Jock Tax' - Hoodline
Scholarship & White Papers
Public Opinion Research
-
Pennsylvania High Court Hears Challenge to Voter ID Law
Voter ID laws, defined as laws requiring photo evidence of identification at the polls, are a growing trend across the country. The first states to adopt such laws were Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, and Tennessee. Proponents claim that the impetus behind these laws is to minimize voter fraud by ensuring that those voting are, in fact, the person they claim to be. Opponents view them as an effort to disenfranchise the poor, the infirmed, and the elderly, analogizing the law to the unconstitutional poll taxes historically used to prevent black Americans from voting.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Excludes Any Exposure Theory in Asbestos and Toxic-Tort Litigation
On May 23, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the trial court had properly excluded the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses from espousing the opinion that every occupational exposure to asbestos contributes substantially to mesothelioma.1 This is the any exposure theory that has served as the foundation for a significant expansion of asbestos litigation in recent years by incorporating even the smallest amount of occupational exposure as a “substantial factor” in causing disease. This article provides background information on the any exposure theory and explains the significance of this ruling and why this and other courts are regularly rejecting it. The Pennsylvania opinion is only the latest in a series of similar opinions excluding the any exposure theory as unscientific and unsuitable to support causation in toxic tort litigation.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Vacates Trial Court’s Denial of a Minor’s Application to Obtain an Abortion
On December 22, 2011, in a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a trial court’s denial of a minor’s judicial bypass application—an application to obtain an abortion without parental consent. In so doing, the court decided two issues of significance to both sides of the abortion debate: the standard of review on appeal and the relevance of a minor’s failure to seek parental consent in determining whether to grant a judicial bypass. First, the court held that appellate courts must deferentially review—under an abuse of discretion standard—a trial court’s denial of a minor’s petition for judicial bypass. Second, the court held that a trial court may not rely on a minor’s failure to seek her parents’ consent when determining whether she has the requisite maturity and capacity to consent to an abortion.
-
Better Alive Than Dead
When David Hockenberry, a man with profound mental retardation, came down with pneumonia in 2007, he began having difficulty breathing. His doctors insisted that he be placed on a temporary ventilator to survive. His guardians, however, citing Mr. Hockenberry’s “best interests,” sought to refuse the treatment. In doing so, they launched a legal battle that reached all the way to Pennsylvania’s highest court.