Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller attorneys have argued several high-profile appeals in recent months.

In May, Mark Aronchick argued before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on behalf of Governor Wolf in Scarnati v. Wolf, the Pennsylvania Senate’s appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court from the Commonwealth Court’s ruling that certain items in the 2014 budget bills were properly within the scope of the Governor’s constitutional line-item veto power. Earlier, in April, he argued on behalf of the City of Philadelphia before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, seeking the affirmance of the trial court’s complete dismissal of a challenge to the Philadelphia Beverage Tax. Read more about Scarnati |  Read more about the Philadelphia Beverage Tax

In March, John Summers, argued a real estate tax case in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on behalf of a major apartment building developer. The case, Valley Forge Towers Apartments N. LP et al v. Upper Merion Area School District et al., a constitutional challenge under the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, is a first of its kind before the Supreme Court. Read more

Bonnie Hoffman recently argued an appeal in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on behalf of the School District of Lancaster in Applicants for Academy of Business and Entrepreneurship Charter School v. The School District of Lancaster. The case raised critical questions regarding what requirements a proposed charter school must satisfy to demonstrate sufficient community support through a signature petition in order to appeal a school district’s denial of its charter school application, as well as jurisdictional questions concerning appeals from common pleas court decisions relating to agency proceedings. In March 2017, the Commonwealth Court agreed with our client’s arguments, affirmed the trial court’s finding, and dismissed the proposed charter school’s appeal.

Ronald Schiller argued an appeal in the matter of Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. v. American Healthcare Services Association, et al. before the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. This case involved a multi-million dollar healthcare insurance dispute stemming from dozens of patients contracting Hepatitis C while being treated at a New Hampshire area hospital, which ultimately led to a criminal prosecution. The Court unanimously ruled in favor of Ron’s client, Arch Insurance Company. Ron also argued two complex insurance coverage appeals in federal court recently: in January, he represented Darwin Select Insurance before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and in October, he represented Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company and First Specialty Insurance Corporation before the Eighth Circuit.  Read more about the New Hampshire Appeal | Read more about the Ninth Circuit Appeal | Read more about the Eighth Circuit Appeal

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled in favor of our client, TrizecHahn, in a matter that Matthew Hamermesh argued on appeal. The case involved the interaction of the Bankruptcy Code and Pennsylvania’s Dragonetti Act. Read more

In May, Barry Refsin argued before the Third Circuit on behalf of two of the firm’s retail pharmacy clients in a pay-for-delay antitrust case in which plaintiffs allege that a brand name pharmaceutical manufacturer paid its potential generic competitor to delay generic competition. The case, In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation, and a related case, In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, presents an opportunity for the Third Circuit to clarify the pleading standards applicable to reverse payment cases. Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in F.T.C. v. Actavis, which permitted such claims to proceed under the antitrust rule of reason, the district court held that plaintiffs must plead the value of any non-cash reverse payments with precision in order to survive a motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit previously addressed the legal standards applicable to non-cash reverse payments in 2015 in King Drug Co. v. GlaxoSmithkline (Lamictal).  In that case, the Third Circuit adopted arguments in our firm’s amicus brief concerning the substantive application of the rule-of-reason analysis in reverse payment cases brought pursuant to Actavis.  Read More