Melvin v. Doe
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the CourtBrosky, J.
¶ 1 In this appeal, we are asked to review the trial court’s order denying Appellants’ motion for summary judgment as well as their motion for a protective order. 1 After careful review, we quash the appeal.
¶ 2 The relevant facts are not in dispute. In the early part of 1999, the following comment appeared on an internet web page identified as “Grant Street ‘99.”
Despite being prohibited from engaging in political activity, a couple of Judges have been keeping themselves pretty busy recently with politics. Judge Joan Orie Melvin has been lobbying the Ridge administration on behalf of a local…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Geniviva v. FriskSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Pace v. Thomas Jefferson University HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- McGourty v. Pennsylvania Millers Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Watson v. City of PhiladelphiaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Melvin v. DoeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Krinsky v. Doe 6California Court of Appeal · 2008
- American Independent Insurance v. E.S. Ex Rel. CrespoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Polito v. AOL Time Warner Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2004
- Reunion Industries Inc. v. Doe 1, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County2007
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.