Trial court erred in deciding appellant violated the case management order by failing to deposit money in an escrow account in an appeal of a landlord-tenant issue because the order and local court rules only set forth the procedure a tenant had to follow to obtain supersedeas to prevent eviction during the pendency of the appeal and provided no directive regarding escrow payments for tenants who did not wish to protect against eviction. Order vacated.

District court wrongly dismissed appellant's breach of fiduciary duty and professional malpractice complaint because it erred in treating appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of shareholder standing as a motion under rule 12 (b)(1) instead of under rule 12 (b)(6), court found the shareholder standing rule was non-jurisdictional and remand was necessary. Vacated.

Appellants are homeowners who sued their homeowner's association, River Hollow Association seeking an injunction to require the HOA to maintain common properties, per the declaration of covenants and restrictions for their subdivision.

Commonwealth court erred in holding that act 129 did not mandate installation of smart meters and court found customers failed to meet their burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, a conclusive causal connection between RF emissions from smart meters and adverse human health effects. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Larceny Conviction Affirmed where State Showed Defendant Stole Victim's Credit

Former corporate president's motion for injunctive relief denied where he was unlikely to prevail on fiduciary claims where company was in the same or better financial circumstances, and any financial problems had been caused by his use of corporate assets for personal purposes. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction denied.

Appellant, Allison King, enrolled online for the Spring 2020 semester at Baylor University for undergraduate "educational services," including meals and on-campus activities.

Commonwealth Court erred in forfeiting appellant's pension under Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act because appellant's guilty plea to 18 U.S.C. §1001 did not trigger pension forfeiture since §1001 and 18 Pa.C.S. §4906 were not "substantially the same." Reversed.

In 1994, appellants, the Wagners, entered into a Purchase and Sell agreement that gave the Wagners oil and gas interests in Louisiana.

Motions released on: September 8, 2022