Lomas, R. v. Kravitz, J., et al s - No. (Granted) (petitions for allowance of appeal)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT ROY H. LOMAS, SR., D/B/A ROY LOMAS CARPET CONTRACTOR, Respondent v. JAMES B. KRAVITZ, CHERRYDALE CONSTRUCTION CO., ANDORRA SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND KRAVMAR, INC. F/K/A EASTERN DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES INC., Petitioners : No. 52 MAL 2016 : : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Superior Court : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 24th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are: (1) Whether, as a matter of law, the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas should have been recused from presiding over the non-jury trial due to an appearance of impropriety arising from the ongoing participation and financial interest in the litigation by a sitting member of that Court? (2) Whether, as a matter of law, an appearance of impropriety was created when a sitting member of the Montgomery County Bench personally participated in the litigation? Justices Donohue and Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
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.
