No. 9 MM 2010.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District.
May 26, 2010.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 2010, this Court recognizes that the judicial corruption issues raised by Petitioners are significant ones, as this case was tried before Mark A. Ciavarella, the plaintiffs were represented by Robert Powell, questions regarding the relationship between Ciavarella and Powell were specifically raised by Petitioners but were deflected by Ciavarella, and a significant jury award ultimately was entered. Petitioners’ appeal, however, is pending before the Superior Court. That court can ably perform the function of being the initial appellate body to review this matter. Accordingly, the Application for Extraordinary Relief is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew these issues, if necessary, following the Superior Court’s disposition of the pending appeal.
243 A.3d 177 (2020) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Keith ALEXANDER, Appellant. No. 30 EAP…
24 Pa. D. & C. 3d 115 (1982) Bodan v. Fickett No. 2726 Civil 1981.Common…
Irwin v. Bank of the United States, 1 Pa. 349 (1845) Sept. 1845 · Supreme Court of…
52 A.3d 357 (2012) Maureen DURST and Scott Durst, Appellants v. MILROY GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC.…
334 A.2d 280 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Edward SISTRUNK a/k/a Edward Brooks, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of…
191 A. 607 McIntyre et al., Appellants, v. Pope et al.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.March 25,…