Snyder, S. v. George M Thomas, et al. (dissenting)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT SCOTT SNYDER, Petitioner v. GEORGE M. THOMAS III, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE M. THOMAS, JR., ALSO KNOWN AS GEORGE THOMAS, DECEASED, AND GEORGE M. THOMAS III, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY L. THOMAS, DECEASED, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 299 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court filed April 9, 2014 at No. 407 WDA 2013, reversing the Order of the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas filed February 13, 2013 at No. 11091 of 2010, C.A. DISSENTING STATEMENT MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: JANUARY 23, 2015 I respectfully dissent from the majority’s summary disposition of this case on the allocatur docket. The Court’s Internal Operating Procedures require that “[a] per curiam order granting allowance of appeal and reversing an order of the lower court must cite to controlling legal authority or provide a full explanation of the reasons for reversal.” Supreme Court IOP §6(B). The rule is plainly intended to provide litigants with a reasonably developed explanation as to why the Court is exercising its discretion to disturb the status quo attained in an as-of-right direct appeal. In this regard, the majority’s mere citation to a general legal principle, without any attempt to explain how that principle applies to the particular facts under review, is facially deficient. Absent a citation to directly controlling authority involving an analogous paradigm, this Court should, at most, grant the request for allocatur and consider the merits upon full briefing by the parties. Madame Justice Todd joins this dissenting statement.
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.
