petition for allowance of appeal with appendix 03192012

8/2/2019 Petition for Allowance of Appeal With Appendix 03192012

1/21

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________________________________

Docket No.

____________________________________________________________

IN RE: PETITION FOR INITIATIVE TO PREVENT

THE SALE AND/OR LEASE OF GRACEDALE

FILED WITH NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

ELECTIONS COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2011

APPEAL OF GRACEDALE INITIATIVE PETITION COMMITTEE

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL FROM

MARCH 8, 2012 ORDER OF COMMONWEALTH COURTELECTION MATTER

_______________________________________________________________

APPELLANTS BRIEF________________________________________________________________

LAWRENCE M. OTTER, ESQUIRE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

PA ATTORNEY ID 31383

PO Box 2131

Doylestown, PA 18901

267-261-2948

215-230-7197 (FAX)

email: [email protected]


2/21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. ORDER IN QUESTION 1

II. OPINION (NOT RPEORTED) 1

III. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1

IV. CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS 4

V. CONCISE STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF 7

APPEAL

VI. CONCLUSION 10

APPENDIX

COMMONWEALTH COURT DOCKET ENTRIES

COMMONWEALTH COURT OPINION MARCH 8, 2012

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OPINION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

i.


3/21

TABLE OF AUTHORITES

PENNSYLVNAIA CASES

A. SUPREME COURT

Brannagan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 352 Pa. 18, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9

41 A.2d 869 (1945)

Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541, 659 A.2d 541 (1995) 2, 3, 4, 8, 9,

Commonwealth v.Wilson, 538 Pa. 485, 649 A.2d 435 (1994) 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10

In re Farnese, ___ Pa. ____, 17 A.3d 375 (March 29, 2011) 3, 5, 6, 8

Quest Land Development Group, LLC. v. Zoning Hearing 3, 4, 9, 10Board of Lower Heidleberg Township, 594 Pa. 2, 934 A.2d 686 (2007)

B. COMMONWEALTH COURT

Kohr v. Lower Windsor Township Board of Supervisors, 3

910 A. 2d 152, 161 (Pa. Cmwlth 2006)

C. STATUTES

25 P.S. 2937 6

D. RULES

PA RAP 341 9

ii


4/21

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL FROM

MARCH 8, 2012 ORDER OF COMMONWEALTH COURT

Notice is hereby given that the Gracedale Petition Initiative Committee, a/k/a

Coalition of Alzheimers Families, by its attorney, Lawrence M. Otter, Esquire, hereby

petitions for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from the

Commonwealth Court order entered in this matter on the March 8, 2012. This Order has

been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry.

(Attached hereto as Exhibit A).

I. ORDER IN QUESTIONAND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2012, the Gracedale Initiative Petition

Committees appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of

Northampton County, dated August 30, 2011, is quashed.

II. OPINION NOT REPORTEDSee unreported opinion of a three judge panel of the Commonwealth Court at

1715 C.D. 2012. (Attached hereto as Exhibit B).

III. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEWA. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred as a matter of law in denying the

appeal which was based upon after discovered evidence of wrongdoing by the

Objectors to the GIPC petition initiative?

Suggested Answer: In the Affirmative.

The Commonwealth Court completely misread the basis of the

appeal which was after discovered evidence which was unavailable to

GIPC or their counsel after the objectors petition to set aside was

dismissed. The Pennsylvania standard on this question is the same in both

1


5/21

the criminal and civil context. This court stated:

To entitle a defendant to a new trial on this ground (after-discovered evidence) the evidence must have been discovered

since the trial, and be such as could not have been obtained at thetrial by the use of reasonable diligence; it must not be simplycorroborative or cumulative, or merely to impeach the credibilityof a witness; and it must be such as would likely result in adifferent verdict if a new trial were granted * * *. Such anapplication is not governed by the strict technical rules applicableto a writ of error, but is addressed to the sound discretion of thecourt * * * and the exercise of this discretion by the court inrefusing a new trial will be reversed on appeal only where it hasbeen clearly abused * * *. Brannagan v. Great Atlantic &Pacific Tea Co., 352 Pa. 18, 41 A.2d 869 (1945). See also:

Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541, 659 A.2d 541(1995); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 538 Pa. 485, 649 A.2d 435

(1994).

The evidence that Counsel for GIPC sought to offer the court dealt with

information gleaned from post trial articles in the Morning Call which detailed

legal bills from the law firm retained by the County to assist in the sale of

Gracedale, the county nursing home. Those billings showed significant time for

review of the GIPC petitions for the sole purpose of challenging those petitions.

The second article detailed email correspondence among the objectors, OHare

and Angle, the alleged private litigants , the county executive John Stoffa and

the law firm retained by the county for the sale of Gracedale which clearly

showed that tax money was used to assist OHare and Angle prosecution of their

petition to set aside.

This evidence was first brought to light by the Morning Call on March 14,

2011 (the billing article) and expanded in a subsequent article on April 19, 2001

(the email article). Neither GIPC nor counsel could have discovered this

2


6/21

information by reasonable diligence. This new and after discovered information is

neither corroborative nor cumulative. This new and after discovered information

would not have been used merely to impeach the credibility of a witness. This

new and after discovered information would likely result in a different decision on

the issue of an award of attorney fees and costs to GIPC, the winner in the

election challenge matter at the heart of this case. See: In re Farnese, ___ Pa.

____, 17 A.3d 375 (March 29, 2011)

B.

Whether this case should be remanded to the Commonwealth Court forremand to the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County,

Pennsylvania, with instructions to the Court of Common Pleas to consider

whether upon motion of Petitioners, the petition for attorney fees and costs

should be opened on the basis of after-discovered evidence, See Brannagan v.

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 352 Pa. 18, 41 A.2d 869, 870 (1945), and if

so, whether upon motion of Petitioners, additional evidence should be

received?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the Affirmative.See: Brannagan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 352 Pa. 18, 41

A.2d 869 (1945). Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541, 659 A.2d

541 (1995); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 538 Pa. 485, 649 A.2d 435

(1994); Quest Land Development Group, LLC. V. Zoning Hearing

Board of Lower Heidleberg Township, 594 Pa. 2, 934 A.2d 686 (2007).

C. Whether the Commonwealths Court erred in its conclusion that a trialcourts denial of reconsideration of a final order is not reviewable on appeal?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the Affirmative.

See: PA RAP 341. Contra: Kohr v. Lower Windsor Township Board of

Supervisors, 910 A. 2d 152, 161 (Pa. Cmwlth 2006). But see: Brannagan v.

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 352 Pa. 18, 41 A.2d 869, 870 (1945);Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541, 659 A.2d 541 (1995);

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 538 Pa. 485, 649 A.2d 435 (1994); Quest Land

Development Group, LLC. V. Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Heidleberg

Township, 594 Pa. 2, 934 A.2d 686 (2007).

3


7/21

D. Whether the Commonwealth Court elevated form over substance indetermining that the appeal was untimely when the basis of the appeal was

after discovered evidence that was covered up by the original objectors and

unavailable to the Petitioners and their counsel at the time of the original

hearing on its petition for costs and fees as the winner of an election

challenge mater?.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the Affirmative.

See: Brannagan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 352 Pa. 18, 41

A.2d 869, 870 (1945); Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541, 659A.2d 541 (1995); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 538 Pa. 485, 649 A.2d 435

(1994); Quest Land Development Group, LLC. V. Zoning Hearing

Board of Lower Heidleberg Township, 594 Pa. 2, 934 A.2d 686 (2007).

IV.

CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS

On February 11, 2001, as the prevailing party in an election challenge matter,

Gracedale Initiative Petition Committee, pursuant to 25 P.S. 2937, filed a motion for an

award of attorney fees and expenses for work performed by its attorney in this action

prior to the verdict in its favor on February 9, 2011. The Common Pleas Court held a

hearing on the matter on March 4, 2011 and subsequently denied the motion.

Unbeknownst to either the Committee or the Court at the time of the hearing was

the fact that the County Executive secretly assisted in the preparation of the petition

challenge by having a law firm paid for with tax money review 300 of the 507 page

petition and thousands of signatures and prepare a page and line challenge to over 1000

signatures submitted by the committee which became part of the OHare/Angle filing..

Eleven (11) days later, this secret was exposed on March 15, when The Morning

Call published an article which revealed for the first time the illicit use of tax money

authorized by the County Executive John Stoffa and his minions to assist Objectors and

private citizens OHare and Angle in furtherance of the filing of their Petition to Set

4


8/21

Aside the Initiative. See :- Did taxpayers fund Gracedale petition fight? The article

recounts various January 2011 billings by the law firm of Eckert Seamans specifically for

the review of petition signatures submitted to the Board of Elections by GIPC. The labor

intensive review of petition signatures for defects is fundamental for any petition

challenge. The firm billed for 80 hours for signature reviews at a cost of $10,800.00. This

bill was approved by John Conklin and John Stoffa and paid by the County of

Northampton.

On March 29, 2011, the Supreme Court handed down its decision In re: Farnese,

___ Pa.____, 17 A.3d 375 (March 29, 2011) which outlines the standards for imposition

of costs in an election case.

On April 12, 2011, the Commonwealth Court upheld the decision of lower Court

on the petition challenge. See: Docket No: 273 C.D. 2011.

On April 20, 2011, the Morning Call published another story about the Gracedale

matter but this time it was based upon email correspondence between OHare,

Stoffa, Ron Angle, John Conklin and Mark Stewart, Esquire. The article states, inter alia:

Executive John Stoffa's administration and his lawyers worked with blogger Bernie

O'Hare on his and Councilman Ron Angle's failed attempt to keep Northampton County

voters from having a say on the sale of Gracedale nursing home. An attorney from Eckert

Seamans, the firm the county hired to help privatize Gracedale, charged the county about

$15,000 to revise Angle and O'Hare's court challenge and to produce evidence submitted

as Exhibit A in the challenge.

On January 20, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Eckert Seamans provided Bernard OHare with

a spread sheet that then became EXHIBIT A and was attached to his and

5


9/21

Angles petition to set aside the Initiative. On January 24, 2011 at 6:54PM significant

revisions of the OHare Angle Challenge petition were emailed from Mark Stewart to

Bernie OHare. Those revisions and the Exhibit A spreadsheet were incorporated into

the document filed with this Court on January 25, 2011. Regarding Exhibit A, John

Stoffa had the audacity to suggest to the Morning Call that: "It was public

information," Stoffa said. "We would have given it to anybody who asked for it."

(Emphasis added). None of this information was known or available to GIPC or its

counsel at the time of the March 4, 2011 hearing on the original motion.

On April 28, 2011, GIPC/COAF filed a motion for reconsideration of the original

denial of attorney fees and costs in light of the information gleaned from the Morning

Call, the original documents and the Supreme Court Farnese decision.

On May 5, 2011, GIPC/COAF then amended its motion which is the subject

matter of this appeal, to include a surcharge action but the surcharge was later withdrawn

without prejudice on July 1, 2011.

A conference on the motion was held on August 18, 2011. Judge Baratta

completely misconstrued the facts, the Election Code and the Farnese case by focusing

on the partial success of the OHare/Angle petition challenge and determining that some

of the merits of the challenge precluded him from awarding attorney fees.The Judge

below noted that the objectors were fairly successful with regard to the signatures to

these signatures listed in the petition. The Trial Court below seemed to totally disregard

the fact that the Objectors OHare and Angle lost, and GIPC won, which is a prerequisite

to bringing a motion for attorney fees and costs under the Election Code. See: 25 P.S.

2937; In Re Farnese, supra.

6


10/21

The Court below confused the reconsideration motion for GIPCs counsel fees

and costs against OHare and Angle with a surcharge against county officials for illegal

use of tax money for partisan political purposes, specifically a petition challenge to the

Gracedale Initiative Petition, styling it a hybrid surcharge matter. (The surcharge action

was withdrawn on July 1, 2011. The Court below repeatedly commingled the surcharge

action with the motion for reconsideration.

On August 30, 2011, the Court formally denied the reconsideration on the motion

for attorney fees and costs related to the election matter. The Court stated We note that

there were no new allegations proffered by counsel related to vexatious, obdurate,

dilatory or bad faith actions by OHare/Angle in bringing or prosecuting their challenge

to the Petition Initiative.

On September 8, 2011, GIPC/COAF appealed that decision to Commonwealth

Court.

On March 8, 2012, the Commonwealth Court quashed the appeal.

On Monday March 19, 2012, GIPC appealed to the Supreme Court.

V. CONCISE STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OFAPPEAL

The Commonwealth Court completely misread the basis of the

appeal which was after discovered evidence which was unavailable to GIPC or

their counsel after the objectors petition to set aside was dismissed. The

Pennsylvania standard on this question is the same in both the criminal and civil

context. This court stated:

7


11/21

To entitle a defendant to a new trial on this ground (after-discovered evidence) the evidence must have been discoveredsince the trial, and be such as could not have been obtained at thetrial by the use of reasonable diligence; it must not be simplycorroborative or cumulative, or merely to impeach the credibility

of a witness; and it must be such as would likely result in adifferent verdict if a new trial were granted * * *. Such anapplication is not governed by the strict technical rules applicableto a writ of error, but is addressed to the sound discretion of thecourt * * * and the exercise of this discretion by the court inrefusing a new trial will be reversed on appeal only where it hasbeen clearly abused * * *. Brannagan v. Great Atlantic &Pacific Tea Co., 352 Pa. 18, 41 A.2d 869 (1945). See also:

Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541, 659 A.2d 541

(1995); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 538 Pa. 485, 649 A.2d 435

(1994).

The evidence that Counsel for GIPC sought to offer the court dealt with

information gleaned from post trial articles in the Morning Call which detailed

legal bills from the law firm retained by the County to assist in the sale of

Gracedale, the county nursing home. Those billings showed significant time for

review of the GIPC petitions for the sole purpose of challenging those petitions.

The second article detailed email correspondence among the objectors, OHare

and Angle, the alleged private litigants , the county executive John Stoffa and

the law firm retained by the county for the sale of Gracedale which clearly

showed that tax money was used to assist OHare and Angle prosecution of their

petition to set aside.

This evidence was first brought to light by the Morning Call on March 14,

2011 (the billing article) and expanded in a subsequent article on April 19, 2001

(the email article). On March 29, 2011, this Court decided In re Farnese, ___ Pa.

____, 17 A.3d 375 (March 29, 2011), which established the definitive standards

for an award of counsel fees and costs in an election challenge case.

8


12/21

Neither GIPC nor counsel could have discovered this post trial

information by reasonable diligence. This new and after discovered information is

neither corroborative nor cumulative. This new and after discovered information

would not have been used merely to impeach the credibility of a witness. This

new and after discovered information would likely result in a different decision on

the issue of an award of attorney fees and costs to GIPC, the winner in the

election challenge matter at the heart of this case.

This case should be remanded to the Commonwealth Court for remand to

the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania, with

instructions to the Court of Common Pleas to consider whether upon motion of

Petitioners, the petition for attorney fees and costs should be opened on the basis

of after-discovered evidence, See Brannagan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea

Co., 352 Pa. 18, 41 A.2d 869, 870 (1945), and if so, whether upon motion of

Petitioners, additional evidence should be received. Id.. Commonwealth v.

McCracken, 540 Pa. 541, 659 A.2d 541 (1995); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 538

Pa. 485, 649 A.2d 435 (1994); Quest Land Development Group, LLC. V.

Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Heidleberg Township, 594 Pa. 2, 934 A.2d

686 (2007).

The Commonwealth Courts determination that one may not appeal the

trail courts denial of reconsideration of a final order is at odds with the plain

meaning of PA RAP 341 and the decisions of this Court . See Brannagan v.

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 352 Pa. 18, 41 A.2d 869, 870 (1945);

Commonwealth v. McCracken, 540 Pa. 541, 659 A.2d 541 (1995);

9


13/21

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 538 Pa. 485, 649 A.2d 435 (1994); Quest Land

Development Group, LLC. V. Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Heidleberg

Township, 594 Pa. 2, 934 A.2d 686 (2007).

VI. CONCLUSIONAppellant and Petitioners herein respectfully request that its Petition for

Allowance of Appeal be granted for all of the above stated reasons.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________LAWRENCE M. OTTER, ESQUIREATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTSPA ATTORNEY ID 31383PO Box 2131Doylestown, PA 18901267-261-2948215-230-7197 (FAX)EMAIL: [email protected]

10
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


14/21

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: PETITITON FOR INITIATIVE TO PREVENT :

THE SALE AND/OR LEASE OF GRACEDALE : DOCKET NO:FILED WITH NORTHAMPTON COUNTY ELECTIONS :

COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2011 :Election Matter

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Appeal has been served onpetitioners of record and the Court by email and USPS first class mail or as otherwisenoted:

Commonwealth Court601 Commonwealth Ave.Harrisburg, PA

Bernie [email protected]

Ron [email protected]

DATE: MARCH 19, 2012 ______________________________LAWRENCE M. OTTER, ESQUIRE

11
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


15/21

9:58 A.M.

Commonwealth Court of PennsylvCommonwealth Docket Sheet

Docket Number: 1715 CD 2011

Page 1 of 4

March 15, 2012

CAPTION

In Re: Petition for Initiative to Prevent the Sale

and/or Lease of Gracedale Filed withNorthampton County Elections Commission

January 18, 2011

Appeal of: Gracedale Initiative Petition Committee,

a/k/a Coalition of Alzheimer's Families

Notice of Appeal

Closed

Initiating Document:

Case Status:

CASE INFORMATION

Case Processing Status: March 8, 2012 Completed

Journal Number: SP-61-2012

CivilCase Category: Case Type(s): Election

CONSOLIDATED CASES RELATED CASES

Docket No / Reason Type

269 CD 2011 Related

Same Record Below

273 CD 2011 Related

Same Record Below

COUNSEL INFORMATION

Appellant Gracedale Initiative Petition Committee

Pro Se: No

IFP Status:

Otter, Lawrence M.Attorney:

Address: P.O. Box 2131


Phone No: (215) 230-5330 Fax No: (717) 231-3979

Appellant Coalition of Alzheimer's Families

Pro Se: No

IFP Status:Otter, Lawrence M.Attorney:

Address: P.O. Box 2131


Phone No: (215) 230-5330 Fax No: (717) 231-3979

Neither the Appellate Courts nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liabilityfor inaccurate or delayed data, errors or omissions on the docket sheets.


16/21

9:58 A.M.



Page 2 of 4

March 15, 2012

COUNSEL INFORMATION

Appellee O'Hare, Bernie

Pro Se: YesIFP Status:

O'Hare, BerniePro Se:

Address: 68 South Main Street

Nazareth, PA 18064

Phone No: Fax No:

Appellee Northampton County Election Board

Pro Se: No

IFP Status:

Spadoni, Christopher T.Attorney:

Address: Northampton Co. Election Board

669 Washington Street

Easton, PA 18042

Phone No: Fax No:

Appellee Angle, Ron

Pro Se: Yes

IFP Status:

Angle, RonPro Se:

Address: 669 Washington Street

Easton, PA 18042

Phone No: Fax No:

FEE INFORMATION

Fee Dt Fee Name Fee Amt Receipt Dt Receipt No Receipt

09/08/2011 Notice of Appeal 773.50 2011-CMW-H-00202909/14/2011

AGENCY/TRIAL COURT INFORMATION

Northampton County Court of Common PleasCourt Below:

County: Northampton Division: Northampton County Civil Division

Order Appealed From: Judicial District: 03August 30, 2011

Documents Received: September 14, 2011 Notice of Appeal Filed: September 8, 2011

Order Type: Order

OTN(s):

48-CV-2011-755 Election MatterLower Ct Docket No(s):

Lower Ct Judge(s): Baratta, Stephen G.

Judge

ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENT

Original Record Item Filed Date Content Description

Trial Court Record 1 BoxOctober 24, 2011

Date of Remand of Record:

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Appellee

Angle, Ron

Brief

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Appellant

Gracedale Initiative Petition Committee

Brief



17/21

9:58 A.M.



Page 3 of 4

March 15, 2012

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Appellee

Angle, RonBrief

Due: January 3, 2012 Filed: December 28, 2011

Northampton County Election Board

Brief

O'Hare, Bernie

Brief

Due: January 3, 2012 Filed: December 28, 2011

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Appellant

Gracedale Initiative Petition CommitteeBrief

Filed: November 28, 2011Due: December 5, 2011

Reproduced Record

Filed: November 28, 2011Due: December 5, 2011

DOCKET ENTRY

Filed Date Docket Entry / Filer Participant Type Exit DateRepresentingSeptember 8, 2011 Notice of Appeal Filed

Gracedale Initiative Petition

Committee

Appellant

Coalition of Alzheimer's Families Appellant

October 6, 2011 Certificate of Service Filed

Otter, Lawrence M. AppellantGracedale Initiative Petition Committ

Otter, Lawrence M. AppellantCoalition of Alzheimer's Families

October 7, 2011 10/07/2011Notice of Docketing Appeal Exited

Commonwealth Court Filing

Office

October 17, 2011 Docketing Statement FiledOtter, Lawrence M. AppellantGracedale Initiative Petition Committ

Otter, Lawrence M. AppellantCoalition of Alzheimer's Families

October 24, 2011 Trial Court Record Received

Northampton County Court of

Common Pleas

November 28, 2011 Appellant's Brief Filed


November 28, 2011 Appellant's Reproduced Record Filed


December 9, 2011 No Brief to be Filed by AppelleeNorthampton County Election

Board

Appellee

per letter dated 12/7/2011Document Name:

December 28, 2011 Appellee's Brief Filed

O'Hare, Bernie Appellee

Angle, Ron Appellee

January 13, 2012 01/17/2012Submitted on Brief

Per Curiam

w/o oral argument, unless otherwise ordered.Document Name:



18/21

9:58 A.M.



Page 4 of 4

March 15, 2012

DOCKET ENTRY

Filed Date Docket Entry / Filer Participant Type Exit DateRepresenting

March 8, 2012 03/08/2012QuashedPellegrini, Dan

Memorandum Opinion (6 pages)Document Name:

Comment: The Gracedal Initiative Petition Committee's appeal from the order of the Court of Common Plea

Northampton County is QUAHSED.

SESSION INFORMATION

Journal Number:

Consideration Type:

Listed/Submitted Date:

SP-61-2012

Submitted on Briefs

January 20, 2012

Panel Composition:

The Honorable Dan Pellegrini President JudgeThe Honorable Patricia A. McCullough Judge

The Honorable Anne E. Covey Judge

DISPOSITION INFORMATION

Final Disposition: Yes

Related Journal No:

Category:

Disposition:

Disposed Before Decision

Quashed

Judgment Date:

Disposition Author:

Disposition Date:

Pellegrini, Dan

March 8, 2012

The Gracedal Initiative Petition Committee's appeal from the order of the Court of Common Plea

Northampton County is QUAHSED.

Disposition Comment:

Dispositional Filing:Filed Date:

Memorandum Opinion3/8/2012 12:00:00AM

Filing Author: Pellegrini, Dan



19/21


20/21


21/21