DOCSLIB.ORG

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Superior Court of Pennsylvania PROTOCOLS FOR IN-PERSON ARGUMENTS (Effective September 1, 2021) Starting with the September 2021 Court session, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has adopted a policy that in-person arguments are at the discretion of the respective Argument Court Panel. The following Argument Court Panels may be scheduled for in-person argument and are subject to these polices and protocols: Panel A20-2021 – Pittsburgh (9/28/2021 – 9/30/2021) Panel A21-2021 – Philadelphia (10/5/2021 – 10/7/2021) Panel A22-2021 – Lancaster County (10/13/2021 – 10/14/2021) Panel A23-2021 – Tioga County (10/19/2021 – 10/20/2021) Panel A24-2021 – Philadelphia (10/26/2021 – 10/28/2021) Panel A25-2021 – Pittsburgh (11/9/2021 – 11/10/2021) Panel A26-2021 – Philadelphia (11/16/2021 – 11/18/2021) Panel E03-2021 – Harrisburg (11/30/2021) (En Banc) Panel A27-2021 – Philadelphia (12/7/2021 – 12/9/2021) Panel A28-2021 – Harrisburg (12/1/2021 – 12/2/2021) Panel A29-2021 – Pittsburgh (12/14/2021 – 12/16/2021) This document sets forth Protocols governing appearances when the Panel elects to hold live in-person sessions. These Protocols reflect the Court’s strong preference to hear arguments from counsel and incorporate the Court’s concerns for the health and safety of the general public, counsel, Court staff, and the Judges. Because of the evolving public health guidance provided by the CDC, the State Department of Health, and the various municipal health departments, concerning the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court may modify these Protocols as needed. 1 In General • Counsel, litigants, and other individuals accompanying counsel who arrive at the Courthouse or other designated location must meet the health screening requirements and entrance protocols specified at the entrance to the building. All persons must wear a mask at all times in the building, including the Courtroom, with the exception of counsel or self-represented litigant who is making argument at the time their case is heard and when directed by the Presiding Judge. All persons must adhere to social distancing. • Only arguing counsel and no more than one attendee whose presence is necessary to assist or supervise arguing counsel (e.g., a client, lawyer sitting second chair, or paralegal) or self-represented litigant are permitted access to the Courtroom. Representatives of the news media are also permitted access to the Courtroom but must adhere to the mask requirement. o Notwithstanding this policy, Court Security has complete discretion to restrict access to the Courtroom to ensure social distancing. • Following security screening at the entrance, counsel and attendees, and self-represented litigants, must report directly to the courtroom designated for argument. Counsel and attendees, and self-represented litigants, have access to the lobby area and restrooms immediately outside of the designated Courtroom or other designated location. Following security screening in the main lobby, counsel and attendees and self-represented litigants must report directly to the assigned Courtroom. Once arriving at the Courtroom, they must check in with Court staff, and must sit together only in the areas designated by Court staff. • Lawyers and associated attendees, as well as self-represented litigants, for the case currently being argued, and for the next three cases, will be asked to sit in the Courtroom. Those present for the remaining cases will be requested to remain in the area immediately outside the Courtroom. This policy may be modified by the Presiding Judge in accordance with the circumstances then present. 2 • To enter the Courtroom, counsel and attendees will be required to attest to the fact that they are fully vaccinated or have received a negative COVID- 19 test administered within the prior 48 hours (polymerase chain reaction [PCR] tests preferred). Such process will be done by completing the Superior Court Health and Safety Certification for In-Person Argument form (Attached) on the day of argument and presenting the form to the Courtroom crier upon entry into the Courtroom. Such forms shall not be filed with the Court ahead of time. Arguing counsel or self-represented litigant who would prefer not to complete this process may elect instead to appear remotely and file the Motion for Leave to Appear Remotely at Argument (Attached) with the appropriate Superior Court Prothonotary Office, at least two weeks before the scheduled argument. • No one may enter the Courthouse or other designated building if: o They have tested positive for COVID-19 within the previous 14 days, or are currently awaiting the results of a COVID-19 test; o Have, within the previous 14 days, been in known close contact (as defined by standards provided by the CDC) with a person who has been diagnosed with COVID-19; o Have been directed to either isolate or self-quarantine by any physician, hospital, or health agency; or o Currently have symptoms consistent with COVID-19, such as a temperature in excess of 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit, chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, unusual fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion, nausea or vomiting, or diarrhea; or o Have traveled internationally within the previous 14 days. • Arguing counsel must certify in advance of the sitting that they have read, understand, and will comply with these Protocols and that they are responsible for ensuring that an attendee has read and will comply with the Protocols while in the Courthouse, Courtroom, or other designated location for argument. Counsel’s certification must be made on the Superior Court 3 Certification of Compliance with Revised Protocols for In-Person Argument (Attached) and filed electronically along with the Superior Court Acknowledgement of Argument Form. The same rule applies to self- represented litigants. Motions for Leave to Appear Remotely • Starting with Panel A20-2021 – Pittsburgh (9/28/2021 – 9/30/2021), oral arguments will be scheduled by the Court to be in-person at the discretion of the Panel. However, the Court recognizes that some remote appearances during this transition period may be warranted because of COVID-19- related medical risk to certain arguing counsel or members of arguing counsel’s household, or to a self-represented litigant. • Within seven days of receipt of the Notice of Argument Form, arguing counsel seeking leave to appear remotely must complete the Superior Court Motion for Leave to Appear Remotely at Argument (Attached) and declare under penalty of perjury that counsel’s travel to, and physical presence at, argument would place counsel or a person in counsel’s household at an unacceptable risk of developing health complications from COVID-19. As always, a copy must be served on opposing counsel or self-represented litigant. No other proof or evidence in support of the motion is needed. The same rule applies to self-represented litigants. o The Panel will schedule remote arguments on a separate date. The Superior Court does not permit one side to appear remotely and the other in person. Cases in which the Court permits remote arguments will follow the Superior Court’s protocols and directions for remote arguments currently in effect. • The Court understands that certain intervening events may prevent arguing counsel or self-represented litigants from being able to comply with these Protocols on the day of argument for COVID-19-related reasons. Please be advised that the health and safety of all individuals is the primary concern. The Court will respond accordingly and work with counsel and self- represented litigants to ensure that proper argument is presented to the Court and at the same time adhere to safety guidelines. 4 • Counsel or self-represented litigants experiencing any COVID-19-related symptoms or who are required to quarantine should advise the appropriate Superior Court’s Prothonotary’s Office as soon as possible of the inability to attend in-person argument. In this event, they must also promptly file a Motion for Leave to Appear Remotely at Argument (Attached), seeking leave to have the case heard remotely. No confidential medical information is necessary. • Out of respect for the time and resources expended by the Court and the parties in preparation for oral argument, every attempt will be made to proceed with the argument as scheduled. The Court will continue to assess the ongoing need (or lack of necessity) for entry restrictions and update such protocols as warranted. The contact information for the three regional offices of the Superior Court’s Prothonotary Office is: Philadelphia Office Benjamin Kohler, Esq., Deputy Prothonotary 215-560-5800 Harrisburg Office Jennifer Traxler, Esq., Deputy Prothonotary 717-772-1294 Pittsburgh Office Bobbi Jo Wagner, Esq., Deputy Prothonotary 412-565-7592 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CERTIFICATION FOR IN-PERSON ARGUMENT Case Number: Case Caption: Filing Party: Please complete this form on the morning of argument and hand it to the Court crier. Pursuant to the Court’s Protocols for In-Person Arguments, the undersigned declares the following: 1. I am scheduled to appear in person for argument in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania either as (a) arguing counsel or (b) to assist or to supervise arguing counsel in the above case with arguing counsel’s knowledge and approval; or (c) pro se (self-represented) litigant. 2. I am either (a) fully vaccinated for COVID-19 or (b) have received a negative test result for COVID-19 that was administered within 48 hours of the argument scheduled in the above case. 3. Regardless of my vaccination status, I agree to wear a mask while in the Superior Court unless excused by the Presiding Judge in the above case. 4. I do not currently have any symptoms consistent with COVID-19, such as a temperature in excess of 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit, chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, unusual fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion, nausea or vomiting, or diarrhea.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Merits Brief
    Received 07/10/2018 Supreme Court Western District Filed 07/10/2018 Supreme Court Western District IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: FORTIETH STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY MERITS BRIEF SETTING FORTH COMMON LEGAL ARGUMENTS OF CLERGY PETITIONERS IN OPPOSITION TO PREMATURE RELEASE OF UNREDACTED GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1 Justin C. Danilewitz (No. 203064) Christopher R. Hall (No. 64912) Jessica L. Meller (No. 318380) John A. Marty (No. 324405) SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP 1500 Market Street Centre Square West, 38th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 972-7777 [email protected] Counsel to Petitioner in: And on behalf of Counsel to Petitioners in: July 10, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 1 ORDERS IN QUESTION 3 STATEMENT OF SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 4 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 7 A. The Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury And Report 7 B. Petitioners Belatedly Learn Of The Existence Of The Report 7 C. Petitioners' Motions Challenging The Report Before The Supervisory Judge, And The Judge's Acceptance Of The Report 9 D. The OAG' s Supplemental Disclosures Reveal The Report's Clear Errors And Mischaracterizations Of Petitioners 11 E. The Supervising Judge Denies Some Petitioners' Motions For Protective Order, And A Petitioner's' Motions For Pre -Deprivation Hearings 11 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 13 ARGUMENT 17 I. THE SUPERVISING JUDGE FAILED TO EXERCISE THE STATUTORY DUTY TO EXAMINE THE REPORT AND RECORD TO ESTABLISH THE REPORT WAS SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE 17 A. The Supervising Judge Failed To Conduct A Sufficiently Thorough Examination Of The Report And Record To Determine Whether The Report Was Supported By A "Preponderance Of The Evidence" 17 iii B.
    [Show full text]
  • An Active and Energetic Bishop": the Appointment of Joseph Glass, C.M., As Bishop of Salt Lake City
    Vincentian Heritage Journal Volume 15 Issue 2 Article 3 Fall 1994 "An Active and Energetic Bishop": The Appointment of Joseph Glass, C.M., as Bishop of Salt Lake City Stafford Poole C.M. Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/vhj Recommended Citation Poole, Stafford C.M. (1994) ""An Active and Energetic Bishop": The Appointment of Joseph Glass, C.M., as Bishop of Salt Lake City," Vincentian Heritage Journal: Vol. 15 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/vhj/vol15/iss2/3 This Articles is brought to you for free and open access by the Vincentian Journals and Publications at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vincentian Heritage Journal by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 119 "An Active and Energetic Bishop" The Appointment of Joseph Glass, C.M., as Bishop of Salt Lake City B STAFFORD POOLE, C.M. Joseph S. Glass, bishop of Salt Lake City, Utah, from 1915 until 1926, was the last Vincentian to be appointed a bishop in the continen- tal United States and the first since 1868. "How or why a relatively obscure pastor in Los Angeles was given that post is not clear."' If asked how the appointment came about, older Vincentians usually answer "through the influence of the Dohenys."2 It is a natural re- sponse, given Glass's close friendship with the oil baron and his wife. That very closeness, however, presents a difficulty. It is unlikely that Glass or his friends would deliberately seek a post that would remove him from the fleshpots of Chester Place (the Doheny residence in Los Angeles) and exile him to a remote diocese that was geographically the most extensive in the United States and that had a small Catholic population.
    [Show full text]
  • Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. --~------------------- f'A Q1§ 4.4 1"""'" ,-"""""', "'" "'" ""' ."- "', .. ,.'.. " - :;. C). .[(./ 1;1-)'1-[3 nCJrs [;:;:j PHILADEI~PHIA '~ \.'\i: f , ~,; ~. cP: This microfiche was produced from documents received for COURT inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to evaluate the docum:nt quality. OF COMMON PLEAS ~ 1fi112.8 W uw= 1/1//2.5 ii.& 13.2 ~ I.:: ~ w :) IIII 1.1 ~,,:~ w Y' II 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 'YlICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A () / . ,/ Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with ! • . the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. ~ ! . ! '0 )) . } Points of view or opinions stated in this document are 1982 those of the author(s) and do not represent the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. ., ,J () t~ . , (, National Institute of Justice . ANNUAL, " United States Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20531 REPORT t! ')2 L-------------·--------~(n~)------------------------------------~----~----~ ~ " , " r:. ,""_ "., _ ....... _..:" ~.~" •• __ ._ •• ~~_~_ ••--.':-..-::_~~._. __0 •• ___ ,_"', • . ...... ~-- ... -.--:..,-~.-~-. --.~.- .. --- " PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS '.J /' 1982 II ANNUAL REPORT -j ~ j ), 'j ! ~' ,j 'il, EDWARD J.BRADLEY . ' '(/ ,,~', Pem"'" to ....i;e·INIJ~IId~.~ bftn " 'President Judge " ..•.~ .. if•. 'BradleyJCotnj:Of c ·.• ·c I\~Pl~i,PhiladelRbia ..... , tolhe~c:rtmInIIf~fW~~(Nq,JRS).; '.' . it ~.--'!~ l====·. ~ j! . ... :.. ' .: -, ,.~::'. ,_ _",', •.r-;.. .. '-. ' DAVID N. SAVITT If " Judge, -. :=-". , ' " Court Administrator -;) ------------- -~~ ~- \ \ ,I ----,----- j' TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Homicide Program: New Cases vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Sep 1 9 2019
    Cou rt Admin istration SEP 1 9 2019 Halifax, N.S. AMENDED THIS I DA 2018 Hfx No. 479060 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOV A SCOTIA BETWEEN: DOUGLAS CHAMPAGNE and STEVEN GALLANT on their own behalf and on behalf of the class PLAINTIFF -and- THE ROMAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF HALIFAX THE ROMAN CATHOLIC EPISCOP AL CORPORATION OF YARMOUTH THE ARCHBISHOP OF HALIFAX - YARMOUTH DEFENDANTS SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION (Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, S.N.S. 2007, c. 28) To: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF HALIFAX­ YARMOUTH Action has been started against you The plaintiff takes action against you. The plaintiff started the action by filing this notice with the court on the date certified by the Prothonotary. The plaintiff claims the relief described in the attached statement of claim. The claim is based on the grounds stated in the statement of claim. Deadline for defending the action To defend the action, you or your counsel must file a notice of defence with the court no more than following number of days after the day this notice of action is delivered to you: • 15 days if delivery is made in Nova Scotia • 30 days if delivery is made elsewhere in Canada • 45 days if delivery is made anywhere else. Judgment against you if you do not defend The court may grant an order for the relief claimed without further notice, unless you file the notice of defence before the deadline. You may demand notice of steps in the action If you do not have a defence to the claim or you do not choose to defend it you may, if you wish to have further notice, file a demand for notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Submissions of the Prothonotaries of the Federal Court to the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission
    IN THE MATTER OF THE 6TH QUADRENNIAL COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS SUBMISSIONS OF THE PROTHONOTARIES OF THE FEDERAL COURT TO THE JUDICIAL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMISSION March 29, 2021 Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP 155 Wellington Street West 35th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3H1 Andrew K. Lokan Tel.: 416.646.4324 Fax: 416.646.4301 Email: [email protected] Lawyers for the Prothonotaries of the Federal Court TO: Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP 1 Place Ville Marie, Suite 2500 Montréal, QC H3B 1R1 Pierre Beinvenu Tel.: 514.847.4452 Email: [email protected] Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP 45 O’Connor Street, Suite 1500 Ottawa, ON K1P 1A4 Jean-Simon Schoenholz Tel.: 613.780.1537 Email: [email protected] NOVAlex 1195 Wellington Street, Suite 301 Montreal, QC H3C 1W1 Azim Hussein Tel.: 514.903.0835 ext. 132 Email: [email protected] Lawyers for the Superior Court Judges Association and the Canadian Judicial Council AND TO: Justice Canada Civil Litigation Section, Suite 500 50 O'Connor Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8 Chris Rupar Tel.: 613.670.6290 Email: [email protected] Kirk Shannon Tel.: 613.670.6270 Email: [email protected] Samar Mussalman Email: [email protected] INTRODUCTION 1. Prothonotaries are judges in all but name for a broad range of purposes. They are full judicial officers who hold office during good behaviour until age 75, have the same immunity from liability as a judge of the Federal Court, and exercise many of the same powers and functions as a judge of that court (FC Judge).
    [Show full text]
  • General History the Diocese of Vincennes—Now the Archdiocese of Indianapolis—Was Established by Pope Gregory XVI on May 6, 1834
    General History The Diocese of Vincennes—now the Archdiocese of Indianapolis—was established by Pope Gregory XVI on May 6, 1834. The territory then comprised the entire state of Indiana and the eastern third of Illinois. The latter was separated from the Diocese of Vincennes upon the establishment of the Diocese of Chicago, November 28, 1843. By decree of Pope Pius IX, January 8, 1857, the northern half of the state became the Diocese of Fort Wayne, the boundaries being that part of the state north of the south boundaries of Fountain, Montgomery, Boone, Hamilton, Madison, Delaware, Randolph, and Warren counties. The remaining southern half of the state made up the Diocese of Vincennes, embracing 50 counties. It covered an area of 18,479 square miles extending from the north boundaries of Marion and contiguous counties to the Ohio River and from Illinois on the west to Ohio on the east. The second bishop of Vincennes was permitted by apostolic brief to establish his resi- dence at Vincennes, Madison, Lafayette, or Indianapolis; Vincennes was, however, to remain the see city. This permission, with the subtraction of Lafayette, was renewed to the fourth bishop. Upon his appointment in 1878, Bishop Francis Chatard, the fifth bishop of Vincennes, was directed to fix his residence at Indianapolis. Although the site of the cathedral and the title of the see were continued at Vincennes, Bishop Chatard used St. John the Evangelist Parish in Indianapolis as an unofficial cathedral until the Cathedral of SS. Peter and Paul was completed in 1907. St. John the Evangelist Parish, established in 1837, was the first parish in Indianapolis and Marion County.
    [Show full text]
  • General History the Diocese of Vincennes—Now the Archdiocese of Indianapolis—Was Established by Pope Gregory XVI on May 6, 1834
    General History The Diocese of Vincennes—now the Archdiocese of Indianapolis—was established by Pope Gregory XVI on May 6, 1834. The territory then comprised the entire state of Indiana and the eastern third of Illinois. The latter was separated from the Diocese of Vincennes upon the establishment of the Diocese of Chicago, November 28, 1843. By decree of Pope Pius IX, January 8, 1857, the northern half of the state became the Diocese of Fort Wayne, the boundaries being that part of the state north of the south boundaries of Fountain, Montgomery, Boone, Hamilton, Madison, Delaware, Randolph, and Warren counties. The remaining southern half of the state made up the Diocese of Vincennes, embracing 50 counties. It covered an area of 18,479 square miles extending from the north boundaries of Marion and contiguous counties to the Ohio River and from Illinois on the west to Ohio on the east. The second bishop of Vincennes was permitted by apostolic brief to establish his resi- dence at Vincennes, Madison, Lafayette, or Indianapolis; Vincennes was, however, to remain the see city. This permission, with the subtraction of Lafayette, was renewed to the fourth bishop. Upon his appointment in 1878, Bishop Francis Chatard, the fifth bishop of Vincennes, was directed to fix his residence at Indianapolis. Although the site of the cathedral and the title of the see were continued at Vincennes, Bishop Chatard used St. John the Evangelist Parish in Indianapolis as an unofficial cathedral until the Cathedral of SS. Peter and Paul was completed in 1907. St. John the Evangelist Parish, established in 1837, was the first parish in Indianapolis and Marion County.
    [Show full text]
  • Hall:The Office of Notary Public in Ireland:History, Powers & Fuinctions
    Hall: The Office of Notary Public in Ireland: History, Powers & Functions THE OFFICE OF NOTARY PUBLIC IN IRELAND History, Powers and Functions By Dr Eamonn G Hall Notary Public Director of Education The Faculty of Notaries Public in Ireland Email: [email protected] Web: www.ehall.ie Tel: 087 322 9480 1 Hall: The Office of Notary Public in Ireland: History, Powers & Functions ‘I know thou art a Public Notary, and such stand in law for a dozen witnesses.’ Philip Massinger A New Way to Pay Old Debt (1625) [A] notarised document, according to the celebrated Johannes Teutonicus [(c.1170-1245) canonist, professor of law (Bologna) and noted for his gloss on the constitutions of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)] had ‘the same evidential force as the testimony of two, or perhaps even three witnesses. It commanded more confident belief than the written declaration of a bishop or a judge.’ James A Brundage, The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession, Chicago (2008) Introduction The legal profession in Ireland is divided into barristers, solicitors, notaries and legal executives. Of all the various legal professionals, the notary public is the oldest. In non- contentious legal business, the notary has a comparable standing to that of a solicitor or barrister and has a unique place in international business affairs. This paper briefly traces the history of the notary, sets out the current functions and duties of the office and describes how a person can be admitted to the profession of notary in Ireland. History of the office of Public The profession of notary traces its origins to scribes in ancient Egyptian civilisation and the tabelliones of Rome.
    [Show full text]
  • Caesar Rodney Historical Trail
    CAESAR RODNEY HISTORICAL TRAIL Sponsored by Nentego Lodge 20 Order of the Arrow Administered by Del-Mar-Va Council, Inc. BSA 1910 Baden Powell Way Dover DE 19904 302-622-3300 (revisied 10/23/02) by Edward I. Wedman Jr. and Jeffrey L. Sheraton (revised 10/26/13) by Liam P. O’Connor We would like to welcome you to the Caesar Rodney Historical Trail. We ask your cooperation with the following: Every Scout should realize that his conduct is being observed. The trail runs through public and private areas, and each hiker is a guest. Every Scout and leader should maintain a high standard of courtesy and friendly consideration for the property and feelings of others. Please be quiet when touring the buildings and private properties in and around Dover. It is recommended that Scouts wear their full Scout uniform while hiking the trail. We would suggest that your unit eat lunch on the Green, being careful not to leave any litter when you leave. Fires may not be built anywhere on the trail. It is suggested that each hiker carry a picnic lunch. There are restaurants along the trail for any Scouts that want to buy food. It is best that hikers start at Akridge Scout Reservation and cars can be parked either in Camp Akridge’s front maintenance parking lot or in the back main parking lot. Be sure to ask for permission before starting your hike. There are camping facilities at Camp Akridge if you make arrangements through Del-Mar-Va Council. Accommodations at Dover Air Force Base are available depending on military constraints.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2011 001128
    -~ Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County For ProthonotarY Use Onlv (Docket Number) Trial Division FEBRUARY 2011 Civil Cover Sheet E-Filing Number: 11 0 2 02 12 91 001128 PLAINTIFF'S NAME DEFENDANT'S NAME JOHN DOE 10 ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS 300 N. POTTSTOWN PIKE STE. 210 222 N 17TH STREET EXTON PA 19341 PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 PLAINTIFF'S NAME DEFENDANT'S NAME ANTHONY BEVILACQUA PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS 222 N 17TH STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 -- -~ PLAINTIFF'S NAME DEFENDANT'S NAME JUSTIN RIGALI PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS 222 N 17TH STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 ----- TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFFS TOTAL NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION !Xl Complaint Petition Action Notice of Appeal 1 10 o o o Writ of Summons o Transfer From Other Jurisdictions --- AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY COURT PROGRAMS o Arbitration 0 Mass Tort o Commerce o Settlement $50,000.00 or less o !Xl Jury 0 Savings Action o Minor Court Appeal o Minors !Xl More than $50,000.00 o Non-JUly 0 Petition o StatutOIY Appeals o WIDISurvival o Other: CASE TYPE AND CODE 20 - PERSONAL INJURY - OTHER ~-~-.-- " -~---~-~~---~~---.---~- STATUTORY BASIS FOR CAUSE OF ACTION --- RELATED PENDING CASES (LIST BY CASE CAPTION AND DOCKET NUMBER) ALED IS CASE SUBJECT TO COORDINATION ORDER? PROPROTHY YES NO FEB 14 2011 J. MURPHY TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff/Petitioner! Appellant: JOHN DOE 10 Papers may be served at the address set forth below. NAME OF PLAINTIFF'S/PETITIONER'S/APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY ADDRESS DANIEL F.
    [Show full text]
  • 36848NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. .':.""',1 .t:~1_ 1975 REPORT This microfiche was produced from documents received for Inclusion in the NG1RS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted. the individu::-I frame quality will vary. The resolution chart On this frame may be use~ to evaluate the document quality. 1~="=Z::::::::::::::==';:rc:~= .. ,.. '. .' 1.0 t ti/ -. <::! ~~~ .1 1.1 IIIII~~~ -- -- IIII!~~~ 111111.25 1\1\1 1.4 111111.6 f . "" _J'-••~ .. ,.~- -_. -.ui_~ >. t:l -~";i . - -:; :l~_~:;:;;;:=:z ... , ~..... -.~.. :::::::=. ~===' ... , ,,~ Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with the standards set forth in 41CFR 101·11.504 -. • '~~.~ Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author!s) and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ..... .. , "'-. LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION - .- NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFERENCE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20531 • ... - .. 2/10/77 • ) a , !, rilmed ----------------------".~~--,- --- 1975 REPORT i. fj i t: ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE of PENNSYLVANIA COURTS Room 1414 - Three Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 NCJRS OCT 1~ ALEXANDER F. BARBIERI Court Administrator COVER: Old City Hall, built in 1789-1791, as the first permanent CARLILE E. KING GERALD VV. SPIVACK ROBERT F. KENT home for the city government of Philadelphia was the meeting Deputy Court Administrator Deputy Court Administrator place of the United States Supreme Court from 1791-1800 during Deputy Court Administrator the period that Philadelphia was the seat of the federal for Court Operations for the Minor Judiciary for Fiscal Affairs government.
    [Show full text]
  • THE COURTS Arbitration Upon Agreement of Counsel for All Parties in Title 255—LOCAL the Case
    188 THE COURTS arbitration upon agreement of counsel for all parties in Title 255—LOCAL the case. Such agreement shall be evidenced by a writing signed by counsel for all sides and shall be filed with the COURT RULES prothonotary, who will forward a copy to the court administrator. Said agreement shall define the issues BRADFORD COUNTY involved for determination by the board of arbitrators and Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1301: Cases for Sub- may contain stipulations with respect to facts. mission; No. 96IR000066 [Pa.B. Doc. No. 97-41. Filed for public inspection January 10, 1997, 9:00 a.m.] Order And Now, this 6th day of December 1996, the Court hereby adopts the following Bradford County Rule of Civil Procedure, to be effective thirty (30) days after the date of DELAWARE COUNTY publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Judge Pro Tempore Program; Doc. No. 82-7677 It is further ordered that the District Court Administra- tor shall file seven (7) certified copies of this Rule with Order the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, two (2) certified copies to the Legislative Reference Bureau for And Now, to wit, this 19th day of December, 1996, publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, one (1) certified pursuant to the section of our September 17, 1996 Order copy to the Civil Rules Committee and one (1) copy to the regarding ‘‘Changes in Procedure,’’ it is hereby Ordered Bradford County Law Journal for publication in the next and Decreed that issue of the Bradford County Law Journal. 1. Cases will be assigned to Judges Pro Tem by the It is further ordered that this local rule shall be kept Office of the Court Administrator on or before December continuously available for public inspection and copying 20, 1996; in the Prothonotary’s Office.
    [Show full text]