Dauphin Deposit v. Hess, et al (Dissenting Opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-225-1998] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT DAUPHIN DEPOSIT BANK AND TRUST : CO., : : Appellee : : : v. : : : RALPH W. HESS, JOAN B. PATTISON : AND JERED L. HOCK, INDIVIDUALLY : AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS : SIMILARLY SITUATED, : : Appellants : No. 27 M.D. Appeal Docket 1998 Appeal from the Order of Superior Court entered July 10, 1997 at 667HBG96, reversing the order entered July 11, 1996 and remanding to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Civil Division, at No. 907 Civil 1994 698 A.2d 1305 (Pa. Super. 1997) ARGUED: November 16, 1998 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: March 26, 1999 I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion as I believe the Superior Court wrongly reversed the trial court s denial of the class action settlement agreement. I believe the Superior Court re-weighed the evidence and substituted its judgment for that of the trial court. For example, as enumerated by the majority, the Superior Court disagreed with the trial court s evaluation of the likelihood the class would prevail; the Superior Court also disagreed with the trial court s assessment of factual evidence by giving more weight to the class s proposed testimony than to the bank s already proffered evidence. This re-weighing of the proposed evidence impinges upon the very essence of the trial court s function as the trial court is in the best position to make credibility determinations. Moreover, contrary to the Superior Court s interpretation of the trial court s analysis, I find the trial judge correctly applied the Buchanan factors by establishing that the settlement agreement fell within the required range of reasonableness. Therefore, since the Superior Court made its determination by substituting its judgment of the facts for that of the trial court, I would reverse and affirm the trial court s rejection of the settlement. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.