Reported Appellate Cases
My experience in handing appellate cases includes the following:
Gallaher v. Riddle and Dalessio
850 A.2d 748, Pa Superior Appellate Court, 2004.
(I won this case.) I sought to collect on a judgment I obtained for a client at the trial court. The defendant claimed he had no assets. Upon inheriting money, he renounced the inheritance. I successfully argued that to the trial court that the renunciation should be set aside on the basis that the defendant gave away an asset without receiving any compensation for it and was therefore in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. There was no law on the issue, but the trial court agreed with me, and the defendant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, and created new legal precedent by ruling that the renunciation was a fraudulent transfer, undertaken to improperly avoid paying the judgment.The case is cited in multiple subsequent court opinions and secondary sources, including Bogert -The Law of Trusts and Trustees; Corpus Juris Secundum; West’s Prebankruptcy Planning and Exemptions; West’s Pennsylvania Forms; Summary of Pennsylvania Jurisprudence; Law Review Journal of the Vanderbilt University School of Law; American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education, and various publications of the American Bar Association’s American Law Institute.
In re Estate of Anna Pettenati
760 A.2d 1229, Pa Commonwealth Appellate Court, 2000.
(I won this case.) My client died with a jointly owned bank account. The State imposed inheritance tax on one-half of the value of the account. I challenged the tax in court, and the Trial Court struck the tax.The State appealed the decision to the Appellate Court, which agreed with me that the tax should not have been imposed.The case is cited in numerous secondary sources, including American Jurisprudence; West's Pennsylvania Practice; and Summary of Pennsylvania Jurisprudence.
Stop-N-Go v. Unemployment Compensation Board
707 A.2d 560, Pa Commonwealth Appellate Court (1995).
(I did not win this case.) Stop-N-Go (the “Employer”), which dismissed a female employee (the “Employee”) for willful misconduct by engaging in a ruckus with another employee with whom she was romantically involved. The Employee applied for unemployment benefits at the Job Center, which awarded benefits. The Employer appealed that decision to a Referee, but the Referee agreed with the Job Center and awarded benefits. The Employer then appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed the award of benefits, finding that the Employee’s romantic counterpart started the argument and that the Employee’s response was reasonable under the circumstances. The Employer then retained me to appeal that decision to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. However, the Court ruled that the evidence supported the underlying decisions and let the grant of benefits stand.
Black Lick Trucking, Inc. vs. PA Unemp. Comp. Board
667 A.2d 454, Pa Commonwealth Appellate Court (1995).
(I won this case.) Black Lick Trucking (the “Employer”), a trucking company that arranged for its drivers (the “Drivers”) to deliver coal to a power plant. Workers for the power plant went on strike and were picketing at the entrance to the power plant. The Drivers refused to cross the picket line, claiming that they feared for their safety. The Employer assigned them to haul stone on other jobs for the next couple of months, but that work ended. The plant workers were still striking, and because the Drivers refused to deliver coal to the plant, the Employer laid off the drivers. The Drivers filed for unemployment benefits at the Job Center, but the Job Center denied benefits on the basis of statutory law and applicable regulations, which provided that in circumstances were workers refused to cross picket lines, benefits were to be awarded only when certain criteria were met, including that there needed to be actual violence, or threats of violence with a show of force, at the picket lines. The Drivers appealed the Job Center denial of benefits to a Referee, but the Referee confirmed the ruling. The Drivers then filed an appeal to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which reversed the prior rulings and awarded benefits. The Employer retained my attorney colleague, Beverly Gazza, and me to appeal that decision to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. The Court agreed with us in ruling that the criteria related to violence were not met, and that the Drivers did not have a reasonable basis for fearing for their safety. Accordingly, the Court reversed the award of benefits and dismissed the case.The case is cited in multiple subsequent court opinions and secondary sources.
Giannilli v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company and the City of Latrobe
Docket No. 1063 C.D. 2013, WL 929488, 2014, Pa Commonwealth Appellate Court (Memorandum Opinion).
(I won this case.) My client, Norfolk Southern, condemned a City alley next to Norfolk Southern’s active railway, which left the City with a remainder interest. The City then voluntarily agreed that Norfolk Southern could take the City’s remainder in interest in the alley and Latrobe conveyed the alley to Norfolk Southern. The property owners on the other side of the alley claimed that the conveyance of Latrobe’s interest in the alley to Norfolk Southern’s acted as a condemnation of their right to use the alley, and they sought monetary damages from Norfolk Southern. affected their rights to the public way such that it was a condemnation of their property as well. I appealed that decision to the Appellate Court, which agreed with me and overturned the trial court’s ruling. The property owners filed an appeal with the Pa Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.
