text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
September 17, 2009
DOUGLAS P. TRAUTMAN PLAINTIFF,v.THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, AND ALLEGHENY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, DEFENDANTS.
In this memorandum opinion, the court considers two motions for summary judgment, one filed by the County of Allegheny ("Allegheny County") and the other filed by Allegheny Correctional Health Services ("ACHS," and together with Allegheny County, "defendants"). (Doc. Nos. 68, 71.) Plaintiff Douglas P. Trautman ("Trautman" or "plaintiff") brought an action against defendants alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The pending motions were filed in response to the second amended complaint of plaintiff, an inmate at Allegheny County Jail ("ACJ") at all times relevant to this action. (Doc. No. 52.) In count I of his second amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that defendants violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, based upon the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff avers that he was denied proper medical treatment for both an abscessed tooth and depression. (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 35.) On October 20, 2008, count I was dismissed with respect to defendant Allegheny County. ACHS moved for summary judgment with respect to count I.
At count II, plaintiff claims defendants violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights based upon a theory of retaliation. Plaintiff asserts that he made complaints about his removal from alternative housing, and that defendants wrongfully denied him psychiatric and medical treatment in retaliation. (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 50.) Plaintiff also alleges that those acts were taken in accordance with the "policies, practices, and customs" of ACHS and ACJ. (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 54.) Defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to count II. (Doc. Nos. 68, 71.) Defendant ACHS labeled plaintiff's retaliation claims as unfounded, asserting that plaintiff failed to meet the standards for a § 1983 retaliation claim. Defendant Allegheny County averred that it may not be held liable as a municipality since plaintiff failed to point to a specific policy leading to a violation of his constitutional rights. Both defendants maintain that upon review of all evidence of record, no genuine issues of material fact exist and they are entitled to a judgment in their favor.
Plaintiff filed the original action against defendants on August 2, 2006. (See Doc. No. 1.) On December 20, 2006, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. (See Doc. No. 15.) On March 13, 2008, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint, alleging defendants unconstitutionally subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment and retaliated against him. (See Doc. No. 52.) The cruel and unusual punishment claim was dismissed with respect to defendant Allegheny County. (See Doc. No. 64.) On November 20, 2008, defendants filed the pending motions for summary judgment. (See Doc. Nos. 68, 71.)
While incarcerated at ACJ, plaintiff alleges that he had a serious tooth condition and severe depression and that defendants failed to treat properly those medical conditions, even after plaintiff made numerous requests for medical care. (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21, 23.) ACHS is a Pennsylvania corporation under contract with Allegheny County to provide medical care to inmates. Typically, if an inmate needs medical attention, a nurse sees the inmate and if necessary, makes an appropriate referral.
Plaintiff was incarcerated at ACJ after pleading guilty to one count of corruption of minors. Plaintiff's sentence was imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. (Allegheny County's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. C ("Plea and Sentencing Hr'g Tr.").) Transcripts of the proceedings indicate that plaintiff was sentenced to seven to fourteen months imprisonment in ACJ with the recommendation that he be placed in alternative housing:
[Judge:] Mr. Troutman [sic], at count nine I order you to pay the costs, undergo a term of 7 to 14 months in the [ACJ] with the recommendation that you be placed in alternative housing at the Renewal Center effective February 16. Understand that if you do not complete the Renewal program then you will have to serve time in the Allegheny County Jail.
(Id. at 6.)
From February 16, 2005 until approximately ten days later, plaintiff was incarcerated in ACJ, during which time he was given a physical exam by a medical professional, was evaluated by a psychiatrist, and was placed on Effexor and a blood pressure medication. (Allegheny County's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. J ("Trautman Dep.") at 32-33, 87.) The physical exam took place in a medical room and lasted approximately thirty to forty-five minutes. (Id. at 87.) Despite receiving exams and medication, plaintiff criticized the care he received during this tenday period, stating "I didn't get care." (Id. at 32-33.) Plaintiff's medical records indicate that on February 23, 2005, he was prescribed Effexor for a sixty-day period. (Allegheny County's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. I.)
On February 25, 2005, plaintiff was transferred from ACJ to ADA's House, an alternative housing facility. (Trautman Dep. at 86-87.) Less than two months later, however, plaintiff was removed against his will from ADA's House. On April 12, 2005, he was returned to ACJ to serve his sentence. (Id. at 87-88; 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 12.) A Residential Incident Report from ADA's House indicates that he was returned to ACJ "due to his charges and that he was asking women to bring their kids down to the 12 step meetings." (Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. F.)
Plaintiff asserts that he made numerous complaints about being removed from ADA's House. As a result, plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against and denied treatment for both his medical and psychiatric conditions, particularly during the time frame of June 6, 2005 until July 15, 2005. (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 25, 26.) In his deposition, however, plaintiff indicated that he has "no reason to believe" that the delay in getting him dental treatment was related to his complaints about being removed from alternative housing. (Trautman Dep. at 83.)
After plaintiff's April 2005 return from ADA's House to ACJ, plaintiff received an examination and evaluation similar to that which he received when he entered ACJ in February 2005. (Id. at 88.) During the April 2005 examination, he discussed his medical and psychological concerns with a female member of the jail's medical staff. (Id. at 88-89.) Plaintiff stated that he did not receive medication for a two-week period following his re-entry to ACJ. (Id. at 83.) He testified that, as a result of not receiving Effexor for these two weeks, he "was extremely depressed." (ACHS's Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 3 at 63-64.) The Effexor was to hold off feelings of depression and sadness. (Id.) Plaintiff could not recall whether the failure to treat him with Effexor for the two-week span had any physical effects on him. (Id. at 67.)
An April 26, 2005 entry on plaintiff's medical records indicates that "he was very concerned that he did not get his meds"; he was again prescribed Effexor for a sixty-day period. (Allegheny County's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. I.) The medical notes indicate that on June 8, 2005, he was ordered to continue to take Effexor. (Id.) On July 23, 2005, he was again prescribed Effexor for sixty days. (Id.)
Plaintiff first had tooth pain in May 2005. (Trautman Dep. at 80.) Plaintiff testified that he saw a dentist twice prior to July 12, 2005:
I believe [I saw a dentist] -- I'm not sure, but I believe on two different occasions, the first time in May when I was diagnosed with a bad tooth which progressed into an abscess which in June --
I think June 6th or 9th that I wrote Dana Phillips about, asking her please get me some help and it still took another whatever, four, five weeks, before they put me on the antibiotic and then put a temporary filling in it. Before that I was shoving paper in it. (Id. at 82.) Plaintiff was seen by a dentist the same month he raised his first complaint, and was diagnosed with "a bad tooth." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges the bad tooth progressed into an abscess, which he complained about on June 6 or 9, 2005. (Id.) Plaintiff admitted that on June 9, 2005, almost immediately after that complaint, he saw a dentist. (ACHS's Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 3 at 84.) There was a dental office at the jail, and he was seen by the dentist on both occasions at this office. (Id. at 83-84.)
Plaintiff believed that the bad tooth was a molar; the tooth caused him pain and swelling. (Trautman Dep. at 82-83.) On July 12, 2005, ACHS progress notes indicate that plaintiff was ordered amoxicillin and motrin, and the medical professional noted "Dentist Fri. please." (Allegheny County's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. I.) When asked if he had problems with the tooth after receiving amoxicillin, plaintiff stated "I have had a tremendous amount of dental work done, so as to which tooth exactly that it is, we'd have to pull up my dental records to see."
(Trautman Dep. at 82.) On August 15, 2005, plaintiff was again prescribed motrin. (ACHS's Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment may be granted if, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The nonmoving party must point to specific affirmative evidence in the record, rather than rely upon conclusory or vague allegations or statements. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Concrete evidence must be provided for each element of each of the claims, and the evidence must be such that a reasonable fact-finder could find in that party's favor at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). "A nonmoving party, like plaintiff, must 'designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Orenge v. Veneman, No. 04-297, 2006 WL 2711651, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2006) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324).
A motion for summary judgment will not be defeated by the mere existence of some disputed facts, but will be defeated when there is a genuine issue of material fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In determining whether the dispute is genuine, the court's function is not to weigh the evidence or to determine the truth of the matter, but only to determine whether the evidence of record is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. at 249. The court may consider any evidence that would be admissible at trial in deciding the merits of a motion for summary judgment. Horta v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2, 8 (1st Cir. 1993); Pollack v. City of Newark, 147 F. Supp. 35, 39 (D.N.J. 1956), aff'd, 248 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1957) ("in considering a motion for summary judgment, the court is entitled to consider exhibits and other papers that have been identified by affidavit or otherwise made admissible in evidence").
I.Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments*fn1
Plaintiff's first count is an Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's claim relates to an alleged failure to provide medical care for an abscessed tooth and depression.
A.Tooth Abscess
The Eighth Amendment provides that "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to states. See Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667 (1962) (analyzing a Fourteenth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim). In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), the Supreme Court found that deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs is precisely the type of "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the Eighth Amendment." Id. at 104 (internal citation omitted). The deliberate indifference standard is met where, for instance, prison medical staff acts with indifference in responding to a prisoner's needs, denies or delays access to needed medical treatment, or intentionally interferes with medical treatment that has already been prescribed. Id. at 104-05. "To demonstrate a prima facie case of cruel and unusual punishment based on the denial of medical care, a plaintiff must establish that defendants acted 'with deliberate indifference to his or her serious medical needs.'" Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). This court will evaluate whether ACHS's conduct rose to the level of deliberate indifference to plaintiff's medical needs.
The deliberate indifference standard has two elements: 1) a "plaintiff must make an 'objective' showing that the deprivation was 'sufficiently serious,'" and 2) "the plaintiff must make a 'subjective' showing that defendant acted with 'a sufficiently culpable state of mind.'" Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991)). The subjective component of a finding of deliberate indifference is satisfied where one knows of an excessive risk of harm and subsequently disregards that risk. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-38 (1994). With respect to plaintiff's claim in relation to his abscessed tooth, this court will consider each element.
1. Objective showing
With respect to the first prong, the inquiry is whether an abscessed tooth constitutes an objectively serious medical need. In Young v. Kazmerski, 266 F. App'x 191 (3d Cir. 2008), an inmate brought a § 1983 claim against his correctional facility's dentists, claiming they violated his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. In November 2004, a dentist pulled a number of the inmate's teeth, including all of his upper teeth. Two months later, the inmate complained that his remaining teeth cut into his upper gums; he complained of having trouble eating and sleeping. In January and March 2005, the inmate submitted official request forms requesting dentures. The inmate did not receive dentures until August 2005. Id. at 191-92.
The district court granted the dentists' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that the inmate had a serious medical need. Id. at 193. The court of appeals noted that a dentist told the inmate that he would arrange for dental impressions in December 2004 or January 2005, demonstrating awareness that care was needed. The impressions were not taken, however, until months later. Id. at 193-94.
In Young, the court of appeals noted that according to the facility's protocols "dental emergencies" include treatment for "(1) cessation of hemorrhage; (2) relief of severe pain; (3) oral infections . . . ." Id. at 195 n.5. Although there is no evidence that ACJ had a similar protocol, the court concludes that a reasonable jury could find an oral infection in this case, i.e., the abscess, similarly amounts to a dental emergency. Plaintiff stated that he complained of pain from the tooth in May and June 2005, making known his problem to ACHS. There is a genuine issue of material fact whether the abscess was a serious medical need. Plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence to support the first prong of the deliberate indifference test.
2. Subjective showing
With respect to the second prong of the test, the issue is whether ACHS acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. This inquiry focuses on whether ACHS knew about and disregarded an excessive medical risk to plaintiff. To sustain an Eighth Amendment claim at the summary judgment stage, there must be evidence of record to show that a defendant engaged in the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain upon a plaintiff. The defendant's actions must be "repugnant to the conscience of mankind" and must "offend the evolving standards of decency." See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06.
Viewing the disputed facts in favor of the nonmoving party, plaintiff, a reasonable jury could conclude that ACHS knew about a serious medical risk to plaintiff. Plaintiff testified in his deposition that his first request for treatment of his tooth was in May 2005, and he complained of the abscess in early June 2005. There is no evidence of record, however, that defendant disregarded the risk. After both requests for treatment, plaintiff was seen by a dentist. There is no evidence of record that the type of treatment or medication he received on these two occasions was substandard. On July 12, 2005, ACHS's progress notes indicate a request for a dentist on Friday of that week, and show a prescription for amoxicillin and motrin. He was also prescribed motrin on August 15, 2005.
Although plaintiff alleges the dental treatment he received was delayed from June 6, 2005 until July 15, 2005, the evidence of record indicates that ACHS placed him under the care of a dentist as soon as he made requests. ACHS's responses to plaintiff's needs are not supportive of deliberate indifference.
Since the evidence of record demonstrates that plaintiff was promptly placed under the care of a dentist after both of his requests, at the very most ACHS could be found to be negligent. "A complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06; see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835 (stating that mere negligence is insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim, as it fails to rise to the requisite level of deliberate indifference to support such a claim). To the extent plaintiff alleges that the dentist's "bad tooth" diagnosis in May 2005 was wrong and that he should have been diagnosed as having an abscess at that time, such a claim does not satisfy the deliberate indifference standard. To the extent plaintiff alleges that the dentist did not give him the appropriate treatment or care in June 2005 for his abscessed tooth, such an allegation similarly does not amount to deliberate indifference.
For the above reasons, ACHS's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim in relation to his tooth abscess.
In addition to alleging that the delay in care of his tooth abscess was unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff also alleges that the delay in care of his depression violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that ACHS refused to provide him with a prescribed antidepressant, Effexor, from June 6, 2005 through July 15, 2005. With respect to this claim, plaintiff must again demonstrate that (1) ACHS acted with deliberate indifference by establishing an objectively serious medical need and (2) showing that prison officials knew about and disregarded an excessive risk of harm. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297.
1. Objective Showing
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considers a medical need to be "serious" where a physician has diagnosed one with the condition and has indicated that treatment is required. Monmouth County Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987). A need may be considered "serious" where a layperson would identify the medical need as one requiring a medical professional's care. Id. Although depression is a common fact of prison life, Graham v. Kyler, No. 01-1997, 2002 WL 32149019, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2002), it can be a serious medical illness. In Smith v. Carver, No. 07-575, 2008 WL 436911, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2008), an inmate diagnosed with depression, ADHD, RLS, and anxiety was found to have serious medical needs. Although here plaintiff was prescribed Effexor and medical records from ACHS indicate that plaintiff had signs, symptoms, and a history of depression, it is a close question whether plaintiff's condition rises to the same level as that of the plaintiff in Smith. In Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468 (3d Cir. 1987), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted that "[i]n some situations in which the seriousness of injury or illness would be apparent to a lay person, expert testimony would not be required, e.g., a gunshot wound." Id. at 473 (quoting City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239 (1983)). In other circumstances, however, the court appeals held that expert testimony is required to establish that the injury is serious. Boring, 833 F.2d at 473-74. The court will assume for purpose of this analysis that plaintiff satisfied the first prong.
2. Subjective Showing
Even assuming plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence to establish the first prong of the deliberate indifference test, plaintiff did not adduce sufficient evidence to meet the second prong. The second prong may be established by, for instance, showing an intentional refusal to provide care, delayed medical treatment for non-medical reasons, a denial of prescribed medical treatment, or a denial of reasonable requests for treatment that results in suffering or risk of injury. Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 68 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 346). On the other hand, minor delays in providing medical treatment to a prisoner generally are not actionable where the delay does not result in further injury. See Parker v. Mulderig, No. 92-2645, 1993 WL 44275, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 1993); Felders v. Miller, 776 F. Supp. 424, 427 (N.D. Ind. 1991).
Plaintiff alleges he did not receive Effexor for two weeks after returning to ACJ from ADA's House, and he did not receive Effexor from June 6 until July 15, 2005. After his return on April 12, 2005, to ACJ from ADA's house, he did not receive medical treatment for his depression for two weeks. Medical records show and plaintiff's deposition testimony, however, confirms that he met with medical personnel in April 2005 at intake when he returned to ACJ. In United States ex. rel. Walker v. Fayette County, 599 F.2d 573, 575 (3d Cir. 1979), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a motion to dismiss where the plaintiff alleged that he was denied a medical evaluation and medical treatment for a period of ten days after admission to a correctional facility. The court of appeals distinguished cases where the plaintiff alleges total denial of medical care altogether from those in which the plaintiff alleges mere inadequacy of care, and noted only the former are constitutional violations. Id. at 575 n.2.
While plaintiff may not have agreed with the level of medical care provided to him with respect to his depression, a reasonable jury could not find that ACHS knowingly disregarded a high risk of harm to plaintiff. Plaintiff received an evaluation upon his return to ACJ, and he was prescribed Effexor within two weeks of returning. It is also noteworthy that on February 23, 2005, plaintiff was prescribed Effexor for sixty days. The sixty-day period would have ended April 24, 2005. Plaintiff was prescribed Effexor two days later, on April 26, 2005. Disagreements over the contours of a prisoner's medical treatment do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. See e.g., Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 346. In order to state a valid Eighth Amendment claim, plaintiff must allege conduct on the part of ACHS that shocks the conscience. Plaintiff failed to do so.
Plaintiff alleges he did not receive Effexor from June 6, 2005 until July 15, 2005, but the evidence of record is to the contrary. ACHS progress notes indicate that plaintiff was prescribed Effexor for sixty days on April 26, 2005. On June 28, 2005, sixty-three days after his April 26, 2005 evaluation, plaintiff was again prescribed Effexor for sixty days. He was seen on July 23, 2005, and Effexor was ordered for him. "[C]courts have consistently held that where a prisoner has received some medical care, the alleged impropriety of that treatment will not support an eighth amendment claim." Wilkins v. Owens, No. 87-0954, 1987 WL 11940, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 1, 1987). In the instant case, it is clear from ACHS's medical records that plaintiff was seen by medical staff on numerous occasions and plaintiff received ongoing treatment.
After considering of the evidence of record, the court concludes that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable finder of fact could determine that ACHS acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical need. Summary judgment for defendant ACHS is appropriate with respect to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim with respect to treatment of his depression.
II. Retaliation Claim under the First Amendment
Plaintiff asserts that he made numerous complaints about being removed from alternative housing and returned to ACJ. Plaintiff avers that defendants denied him medical and psychiatric care in retaliation for these complaints. As a threshold matter, Allegheny County argues that it cannot be held liable because plaintiff failed to show it had a written policy that was behind the alleged deprivation. The issue of municipal liability will be addressed first and then the issue of retaliation will be discussed.
A.Municipal Liability -- County of Allegheny
Plaintiff claims that the alleged retaliatory acts were either committed on the instruction of Allegheny County or were approved and ratified by Allegheny County. Under § 1983, a municipality may not be held vicariously liable under a theory of respondeat superior. Monell v. Dep't. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). To hold a municipality liable, a plaintiff must establish that its "policy or custom is the 'moving force' behind a constitutional violation." Sanford v. Stiles, 456 F.3d 298, 314 (3d Cir. 2006). "Locating a 'policy' ensures that a municipality is held liable only for those deprivations resulting from the decisions of its duly constituted legislative body or of those officials whose acts may fairly be said to be those of the municipality." Board of County Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403-04 (1997) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). Once a § 1983 plaintiff specifically identifies a municipal policy or custom, he or she must demonstrate that the municipality's deliberate conduct was the moving force behind the deprivation. Brown, 520 U.S. at 404.
Plaintiff's allegation that Allegheny County should be held liable for the actions of its agents lacks probative evidence. Plaintiff failed to offer evidence of a specific policy or a custom. He did not show that any policy or custom of Allegheny County was the moving force behind a violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of Allegheny County is appropriate on count II.
B.§ 1983 Retaliation
The First Amendment provides "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." U.S. CONST. amend. I. The First Amendment right to free speech is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, and for that reason is applicable to the states. See Miller v. Clinton County, 544 F.3d 542, 545 n.1 (3d Cir. 2008). Although plaintiff does not allege he was deprived of his right to speak directly, "[r]etaliation for the exercise of constitutionally-protected rights is itself a violation of rights secured by the Constitution actionable under § 1983." White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 111-12 (3d Cir. 1990).
In order to establish retaliation in violation of the First Amendment pursuant to § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that (1) he or she was engaged in constitutionally protected speech, (2) he or she was treated adversely by a state actor, and (3) the protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in causing the retaliation. Eichenlaub v. Twp. of Indiana, 385 F.3d 274, 282 (3d Cir. 2004); Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148, 161 (3d Cir. 1997).
1. Engaged in Protected Speech
Plaintiff satisfies the first element. In plaintiff's second amended complaint, he avers that defendants retaliated against him for his complaints about being removed from the alternative housing facility.*fn2 Speech is afforded protection under the First Amendment. The constitutional protection, however, is limited for those who are lawfully imprisoned:
"[L]awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285 (1948). . . . On the other hand, inmates are not shorn of all constitutional rights at the prison gate. A developing constitutional jurisprudence has established that prisoners retain a residue of their First Amendment liberty interests in free speech, Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974).
Saunders v. Packel, 436 F. Supp. 618, 622 (E.D. Pa. 1977).
With respect to the right to free speech within the prison environment, there is "authority stating that formal grievances are protected." Rosales v. Fischer, No. 07 Civ. 10554. 2009 WL 928260, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009). There is no authority, however, that "formal grievances alone are protected." Id. In Rosales, the court held that a prisoner's letter complaining that a prison official threatened physically to harm him was a protected activity under the First Amendment, even though the complaint was not filed as a formal grievance. Id. at **10-11. In this case, plaintiff's complaints, to the extent they were not formal grievances or official requests for medical care, would constitute protected activity.
2. Adverse Treatment
A plaintiff may satisfy the second element by demonstrating that the particular adverse action would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in constitutionally protected activity. See e.g., Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 333 (3d Cir. 2001); Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 2000). This is a fact-driven determination based upon the circumstances of the particular case. Allah, 229 F.3d at 225. In Seiverling, an inmate alleged that he was incarcerated in administrative segregation in retaliation for filing lawsuits against prison officials at the prison facilities in which he was previously incarcerated. As a result, the inmate was not provided with access to the law library, was increasingly confined in his cell and had reduced access to rehabilitative programs. Id. at 222. The court concluded that a reasonable person might be deterred from engaging in constitutionally protected activity under the circumstances and denied a motion to dismiss the inmate's retaliation claim. Id. at 225.
In the instant case, plaintiff argues a reasonable person would be deterred from making complaints about prison conditions or procedures if he or she knew that he or she would be subjected to a denial of medical treatment as a result of those complaints. Defendants counter by arguing that plaintiff did receive adequate medical treatment during incarceration. For a government action to qualify as an adverse action, it need only dissuade an ordinary person from exercising a constitutional right; "[g]overnment actions, which standing alone do not violate the Constitution, may nonetheless be constitutional torts if motivated in substantial part by a desire to punish an individual for exercise of a constitutional right." Allah, 229 F.3d at 224-25 (quoting Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 386 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). The delay in providing medical treatment, although not a violation of the Eighth Amendment, might be an act of retaliation in violation of § 1983.
While a delay or denial of medical treatment would likely deter an individual from making complaints or exercising his or her free speech rights, there is no evidence of record to indicate that ACHS actually took adverse action with respect to plaintiff's depression claim. Medical staff ordered Effexor for plaintiff's depression for sixty-day time spans; the prescriptions were renewed within days of expiring. With respect to plaintiff's abscessed tooth claim, all evidence of record demonstrates that he received dental care relatively promptly after plaintiff complained about dental problems. Although plaintiff argues that he received inadequate medical care, there is no evidence of record to support this assertion. To the extent there were minor delays in medical treatment and care, no reasonable jury could conclude those delays, which were slight, would deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising constitutional rights.
3. Causal Connection
Another difficulty in plaintiff's case arises with respect to the third element. Plaintiff must establish a reasonably close causal link between the protected activity and the alleged retaliation. The third element of a retaliation claim requires a plaintiff to show clearly that the protected activity in which he or she engaged was a significant motivating factor in the defendant's decision to take adverse action against him or her. The plaintiff may demonstrate this "motivation" by alleging a chronology of events from which retaliatory action could be reasonably inferred. Fortune v. Basemore, No. 04-377, 2008 WL 4525373, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2008).
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that the causation element for establishing a retaliation claim under § 1983 is subject to the same standard and analysis applied to a Title VII retaliation claim. Brennan v. Norton, 350 F.3d 399, 421 (3d Cir. 2003). Two main factors are relevant to the analysis: (1) timing and/or (2) evidence of ongoing antagonism. Abramson v. William Patterson Coll., 260 F.3d 265, 288 (3d Cir. 2001).
In the first prong, there must be a close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action. Id. While the court of appeals has not enumerated a stringent formula for what is considered to be too long of a gap between the protected activity and adverse action, the courts have held that a time span of several months is too great. See Williams v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 380 F.3d 751, 760 (3d Cir. 2004) (two months too long to permit an inference of causation); George v. Genuine Parts Co., No. 04-108, 2007 WL 217684, at *11 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2007) (holding that, though suggestiveness is highly sensitive to the facts of each case, a three-month gap "is not so close as to be unusually suggestive of retaliatory motive, especially where an obvious and unimpeached non-retaliatory motive exists").
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has been somewhat ambivalent with respect to whether timing alone is sufficient to satisfy the causation prong of the prima facie case. See Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913, 920-21 (3d Cir. 1997) ("Temporal proximity is sufficient to establish the causal link."); Jalil v. Avdel Corp., 873 F.2d at 708 (causal link established where plaintiff discharged two days following employer's receipt of the plaintiff's EEOC claim); but cf. Krouse v. Am. Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) (causation prong not established on timing alone where nineteen months passed following protected activity and adverse employment action: "Even if timing alone could ever be sufficient to establish a causal link, we believe that the timing of the alleged retaliatory action must be 'unusually suggestive' of retaliatory motive before a causal link will be inferred.");Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc., 934 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 1991) (affirming lower court's determination that the timing of the plaintiff's discharge alone did not raise an inference of retaliation). Timing, however, in connection with other types of suggestive evidence, is clearly sufficient to demonstrate the causal link. Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271, 280-81 (3d Cir. 2000).
In the instant case, even if defendants had taken an adverse action against plaintiff, he failed to establish a causal link between his complaints about being removed from ADA's house and defendants' alleged failure to provide adequate medical and psychiatric care. Plaintiff was removed from ADA's house on approximately April 12, 2005. The alleged retaliatory action (the denial of proper medical and dental care) was almost two months later -- from June 6, 2005 through July 15, 2005.
In his deposition, plaintiff alleges that when he returned to ACJ in April 2005, he did not receive depression medication for two weeks. Medical records of ACHS show that he was previously prescribed Effexor for a period that would cover the first two weeks after his return to ACJ. He also was evaluated by medical personnel upon his return to ACJ. The temporal proximity, therefore, is not unduly suggestive.
Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a pattern of continual antagonism. A review of plaintiff's medical records during incarceration and his own testimony during a deposition present ample evidence that plaintiff was seen and treated by medical staff on numerous occasions.
Since there is no evidence of a delay, plaintiff could only claim that the treatment he received was inadequate, and argue that treatment would deter a person from raising a complaint. This claim, however, would be based on the medical staff's negligence. In Payne v. Khoshdel, No. 9:06CV148, 2007 WL 445989, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2007), an inmate complained that he was assigned to prison work that he could not handle given his physical limitations. He claimed he was thereafter denied medical treatment in retaliation for his complaint, in violation of § 1983. The court stated:
In this case, [the inmate] has not shown that but for the alleged retaliatory motive, the actions of which he complains would not have occurred. Instead, the records show that [the doctor] was applying his medical judgment to the conditions which he observed and which were recorded in [the inmate's] medical records. While this medical judgment may have been mistaken or even negligent, [the inmate] has not shown that it was retaliatory. Instead, [the inmate] presents little more than his personal belief that he was the victim of retaliation, which is not sufficient to show that a constitutional violation occurred. His claim on this point is without merit.
Id. at *7. Given the lack of evidence of a delay in care, plaintiff's claim in this case could only be based upon alleged unsatisfactory care. For similar reasons as those explained in Payne, no reasonable jury could find a constitutional violation occurred. Summary judgment will be entered in favor of ACHS on plaintiff's retaliation claim.
Summary judgment will be granted in favor of defendants with respect to all plaintiff's claims. No reasonable jury could find that defendants knowingly disregarded a risk to plaintiff's safety through acts of deliberate indifference for purposes of plaintiff's cruel and unusual punishment claim. Summary judgment will be granted in favor of Allegheny County with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claim because plaintiff failed to offer evidence of a policy or custom that was behind a violation of his constitutional rights. Finally, defendants' motions for summary judgment will be granted with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claim on the merits, because plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that an adverse action was taken against him or that there was a causal link.
Joy Flowers Conti United States District Judge
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. LOUIS
A. WEXLER, Judge, presiding.
Following a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the defendant was found guilty of the crime of robbery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 18-1). He was sentenced to a term of one to three years in the State penitentiary. Defendant contends on appeal that his conviction must be reversed because the trial judge made a determination of the credibility of the defendant's witness based at least in part upon the judge's own improper independent investigation of previous proceedings involving that witness which were not introduced as evidence during the trial. Defendant further argues that, because the trial judge was forced to go outside of the record before he found defendant guilty, clearly a reasonable doubt existed as to his guilt.
On August 20, 1973, Chicago Police Officer James Davern was on assignment posing as a drunk, in order to catch would-be robbers. While standing on the northwest corner of Chicago and State Streets, Davern was approached by two men, later identified as defendant and one Domingo Quiano. Davern and his partner testified that the two men pushed him into a doorway. Both men then pushed the victim's legs out from under him, causing him to fall to the ground. While defendant held Davern down, Quiano took money out of his pocket. With that, Davern summoned help from other police officers who were observing the robbery from nearby locations. The officers came to Davern's assistance, and subdued the assailants.
Quiano and another party, Winston Sharp, testified on behalf of the defense. Both witnesses stated that Quiano alone had committed the robbery, and that the instant defendant merely observed it while he stood next to a nearby subway entrance. During testimony, Quiano said that he had told Davern that he alone had committed the robbery. In addition, Quiano testified that at his own trial (at which he had entered a plea of guilty) he had told the court that he acted alone. Upon hearing this testimony, and the closing arguments of counsel, the trial judge ordered defense counsel to produce the transcript of Quiano's trial. The judge indicated that he wanted to verify Quiano's assertion that he had said he acted alone, before deciding the instant case.
After the transcript was produced, the trial court reviewed it. Having found no statement in Quiano's trial record to the effect that Quiano had said that he acted alone, the judge made a finding of guilty in the instant case.
• 1 Before addressing the issues raised by defendant, this court feels compelled to take notice of the fact that no post-trial motion was made by defendant or his counsel as required by section 116-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 116-1). The general rule to be applied is that issues not contained in a post-trial motion are waived on appeal. (People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill.2d 280, 296 N.E.2d 856; People v. Harris (1965), 33 Ill.2d 389, 211 N.E.2d 693.) However, under Supreme Court Rule 615(a) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110A, par. 615(a)), the appellate court may take notice of errors not properly preserved on appeal, if those errors affect substantial rights and fundamental fairness requires that the errors be corrected. (People v. McAdrian (1972), 52 Ill.2d 250, 287 N.E.2d 688; People v. Sprinkle (1963), 27 Ill.2d 398, 189 N.E.2d 295; People v. Bonds (1975), 26 Ill. App.3d 703, 325 N.E.2d 388.) Although the court may, by exercise of its discretion, consider issues not properly before it, this rule is not to be used to circumvent section 116-1 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 116-1), or to avoid the consequences of trial counsel's oversight or negligence. Pickett; People v. Killebrew (1973), 55 Ill.2d 337, 303 N.E.2d 377.
• 2 In the present case, this court feels that the issues presented regarding the conduct of the trial judge do state questions which affect defendant's fundamental rights. Therefore, we will consider the present case even though proper procedure was not observed.
Defendant's first contention is that he was denied due process of law because the trial judge considered evidence outside of the trial record to determine the credibility of a major defense witness. In support of this contention, defendant cites People v. Wallenberg (1962), 24 Ill.2d 350, 181 N.E.2d 143; People v. Harris (1974), 57 Ill.2d 228, 314 N.E.2d 465; and People v. Jones (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 198, 309 N.E.2d 776. In Wallenberg, defendant was tried on a charge of robbery. After hearing defendant's alibi testimony and at the close of all evidence, the judge found the defendant guilty. The judge stated that he reached his decision because his personal knowledge of the area in which the crime took place contradicted important aspects of defendant's alibi. The supreme court, upon reviewing the judge's comments in the record, reversed the conviction. In so doing, the court stated that a trial judge must necessarily limit his deliberations to the evidence contained in the record before him. If a judge violates this rule, and makes an independent investigation, or is influenced by personal knowledge which is outside of the trial court, then he has denied the defendant a fair trial.
In Harris, defendant was charged with theft. At the end of the trial, the judge began to question the defense attorney about statements made at an earlier criminal trial. The information sought was to substantiate part of the defendant's alibi testimony which the judge had just heard. When the attorney informed the court that the information desired was not available, the judge then stated that he therefore could not believe the story given by defendants. On appeal, the supreme court reversed the conviction because the judge had determined the credibility of the defendant based upon his own independent investigation of matter not properly before the court.
In Jones, defendant's conviction was reversed on appeal because it was shown that the trial judge relied on statements made by a co-felon during a pretrial hearing. These statements were not introduced into evidence, and therefore, their consideration was reversible error.
In the case at bar, we have reviewed the record, and it is clear that the court below based its finding, at least in part, upon the consideration of material which was outside of the record. When Quiano testified that at his previous trial he had told the court that defendant was not involved in the robbery, and that he had acted alone, the trial judge in the present case was suspicious of Quiano's credibility. The court stated:
"Gentlemen, the court listened very carefully to the evidence and argument of counsel, and the matter is depending [sic] on the believeability [sic] of the witnesses. Now, Quiano testified under oath here that he testified at a previous hearing in the case where he pleaded guilty that he did it alone. This Court is going to withhold a ruling on this case.
The Court is ordering the defense counsel to get a copy of the transcript of his testimony where he pleaded guilty before the judge, and at that time the court will enter a ruling in this case. The court will defer ruling for two weeks from today. Get that transcript. Particularly, I want that statement that he said under oath here that he did it alone, and if that statement is not there, I may instruct the State to take some action against him, but the court will defer a ruling on this case until I get a copy of that transcript, as to his statement under oath to another judge at the hearing where he pleaded guilty that he did it alone. Two weeks from today for a decision".
The trial court received the transcript and reviewed it carefully. The record reflects that when the court made its finding, it did so only after having considered the transcript of the previous trial, and having used it to discredit the assertions of Quiano. The court stated,
" wherein said Domingo Quiano pleaded guilty and the court has examined that record and the court finds no statement in that record wherein Domingo Quiano informed the judge that he and he alone committed the crime and that Louis Brantley had no part of it.
The court accordingly, after reading the transcript and hearing the testimony without a jury, the court is now finding the defendant, Louis Brantley, "
and, after an objection by defense counsel, the trial judge concluded:
"Well, the court took everything into consideration, all of the evidence that I heard and arguments of counsel; and, in addition to consideration, the statement made by Domingo Quiano about his testimony in another court.
And the court, having examined that and examined all my minutes of the record, the court finds the defendant guilty of the crime charged of robbery * * *."
• 3 It is apparent that defendant's conviction was based, in part, upon the consideration of material outside of the trial record. For this reason the case must be reversed and remanded.
Defendant's last point on appeal is that the judge must have had doubts in his mind as to defendant's guilt, and these doubts forced him to go outside of the record to supplement the State's case. Defendant maintains that this action shifted the burden from the State to the defense. Defendant contends his conviction should be simply reversed and not remanded. The trial court apparently sought the transcript of Quiano's plea of guilty so that he could determine Quiano's credibility, and possibly to bring an action against Quiano for perjury. In effect, defendant asks this court to speculate that the trial judge had certain unarticulated doubts of defendant's guilt. We cannot presume to speculate on the finding the court would have made.
The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
HAYES and DOWNING, JJ., concur.
© 2002 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
July 27, 2010
TIM ALLEN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,v.CHICAGO STEEL (PA), LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2010, upon consideration of: (1) Plaintiffs Tim Allen, Dave Bergner, Tim Bushey, Frank Ellis, Barry Gosline, Harley Green, Tracy Grogan, Aaron Grogan, Jim Ksionka, Paul McLaughlin, Joe Monhand, Tony Perrone, and Ed Sherry's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's June 1, 2010 Order dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. No. 12); (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (Doc. No. 7); and (3) Defendants Chicago Steel (PA), LLC, Chicago Steel (IN), LLC, Chicago Steel and Tinplate Processing, Inc., Chicago Steel and Tinplate, Inc., Chicago Steel Limited Partnership, Chicago Steel, Inc., Dan Phillips, Kathy Paxton, Bill Boak, and Claudia Eaton's (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4), and the Responses and Replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's June 1, 2010 Order (Doc. No. 11) is VACATED and that Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' counsel is ORDERED to pay the attorneys' fees and costs associated with Defendants' Reply to the Motion to Dismiss;
(2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand is DENIED; and
(3) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Count I of the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE against Defendants Bill Boak and Claudia Eaton and that Count V of the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE against all Defendants. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in all other respects.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
|Top 200
Join host Scott Aukerman ("Comedy Bang! Bang!" on IFC, "Mr. Show") for a weekly podcast that blends conversation and character work from today's funniest comedians. While Scott begins by traditionally interviewing the celebrities, the open-door policy means an assortment of eccentric oddballs can pop by at any moment to chat, compete in games, and engage in comic revelry. With all that,andregular bonus episodes, we bet your favorite part will still be the plugs!
Parental Advisory
June 23rd, 2014
Episode 313 of 491 episodes
Life long pals David Wain & Michael Showalter have reunited to co-write a brand new rom-com called They Came Together and they're here on CBB to tell us all about it! Theyll get into the good ol days of listening to podcasts on road trips to NYU, how...
You'll need to sign in to write a comment.
Welcome to the daily audio workout for your head.


text:
Award-Winning Phonics Tutors in Stanley, NC
Peggy T - Totally diligent in guiding each student to improving academic skills. U - Understanding that each student has a unique learning pattern. T - Time proven results from tutoring more than 15 years. O - Overjoyed with each success and always encouraging. R - Respectful and very patient when tutoring any level.
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Central Piedmont Community College - Bachelors, Sociology, English
Shanika ...psychology and a MS in Special Education from Monmouth University. In addition, I am recently Orton-Gillingham trained. I have worked with students from Pre-K all of the way through college. My specialty is elementary reading and math, although I am trained and able to go beyond. Although I am an avid reader who believes that...
Thomas Edison State College - BA, Psychology
Monmouth University - MS, Special Education
Jerome My name is Jerome Middleton. I am currently a Teacher at North Mecklenburg HS teaching Accounting, Business Finance, and Entrepreneurship. I am personally invested in helping student achieve proper reading level. I can help students understand complicated concepts and always help develop writing skills to increase professional communication.
University of South Carolina-Columbia - Bachelors, Supply Chain and Operations Management
Terroncia ...with ESOL and Reading Endorsements, and I have my Masters in Education Leadership. With my education, teaching, and leadership experience, I feel that now I have gained the knowledge and understanding of teaching and building relationships. I know I am capable of fostering the development of my students in a comfortable and stimulating environment.
Edison State College - Bachelors, Elementary Education
University of West Florida - Masters, Education Leadership
Meredith ...Carolina after passing the bar exams in both states, I found that my personality was not suited to the profession. While I have explored many other career paths, including, but not limited to, equine management, librarianship, and administrative assistancy, I have found myself drawn time and time again to teaching. I have tutored at many...
St. John's University - Bachelors, Government & Politics
St. John's University Law School - PhD, Law
Cullins ...admission offers from Wake Forest University and The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. My GRE scores earned me a graduate fellowship in my current master's program. I'm pursuing an MBA at the McColl School of Business at Queens University in Charlotte. I completed an MS in Organization Development there recently. I have 10...
Washington and Lee University - Bachelors, English
Southern Methodist University - Masters, English
Jennifer ...children reach those "ah-ha" moments in learning. My goal is to provide your child with relative and fun learning experiences they will carry with them throughout school to reach their highest potential. I love having one on one sessions with students and I can't wait to work with you or your student!... My philosophy on teaching is that if you make it relative to the student, they will gain a better understanding of what it is they're learning. Celebrating even the smallest success sets them up for success!
Belmont Abbey College - Bachelors, Elementary Education
Grand Canyon University - Masters, Curriculum and Instruction in Elementary Reading
Alisha ...believe that education should be fun or at least entertaining. I received my Bachelors degree at the University of West Georgia. I am currently pursuing my Masters in in Education with a concentration in reading and mathematics. I have experience tutoring in elementary grade level grades K-3. Being a current elementary teacher allows me access...
University of West Georgia - BS, Early childhood education
Walden University - MS, Elementary ed with concentration in math and reading
Aaron ...education as an engine and conduit for personal transformation. The starting point for me is to extend to every student basic human dignity and earnest belief in them as a learner. I believe that the desire to learn is at the core of what makes us beautifully human. You can engage this material. You can...
Johnson C Smith University - Bachelors, Sociology
Gardner-Webb University - Masters, Divinity / Theology
Melanie ...the Summer of 2016. In Fall 2015 I completed my Graduate Certificate in Instructional Systems Technology and Educational Leadership from UNC-Charlotte, and received my School Specialist Licensure (077 Licensure) in Spring 2016. I love working with teachers, staff, and parents inside and outside of school on the best technology to use for their lifestyles. I...
Hampton University - Bachelors, Computer Science
Kaplan University- Online - Masters, Teaching


text:
- Home/
- Eastern Conference/
- Philadelphia 76ers/
- '47 Philadelphia 76ers Red Basic MVP Infant Adjustable Hat
'47 Philadelphia 76ers Red Basic MVP Infant Adjustable HatITEM: #4802428
$6.28 $12.99
Please select a size
Hat Sizes: ADJ
This Philadelphia 76ers Infant Adjustable Hat will be a great part of your outfit at the next 76ers game. This Adjustable Hat features a raised embroidered logo on front crown w/ team name on velcro backstrap and will complement the rest of your gameday attire. Go 76ers!
- Adjustable velcro closure
- 85% cotton/15% wool
- Structured fit, brushed cotton twill
- Flat front embroidery
- Officially licensed
- Imported


text:
Coloured Sand
Make your own coloured sand. Vibrant and fun for all sorts of sand art projects like Rangoli patterns and sand bottles.
DIY COLOURED SAND - Easy and fun to make vibrant colours for all your sand craft projects.
Make your own coloured sand for art and play :: DIY sensory play materials :: sand play ideas
make your own sand - using salt and food coloring. Good idea for a lot of things!
How to make homemade colored sand for sensory play and kids art activities
Create these modern terrariums with just colored sand and faux air plants or succulents!
Make your own coloured Sand
Make your own edible play sand in vibrant colors- this is a great sensory material for babies who are still in the mouthing stage. While I doubt they will eat much it is nice to not have to worry if they sneak a taste.
DIY Colored Sand Tutorial. Another easy way to colour sand using just food colouring and sand! Again, this would be great to help kids who are learning their colours
Not too long ago, we needed some colored sand for an art project. So, we decided to try to make our own! This is a easy tutorial in case you would like to make your own colored sand as well! Supplies: food coloring bowls aluminum foil


text:
Build Relationships.
Grow Sales.
Nudge is a Modern Sales Platform that uses artificial intelligence to find actionable insights on your target accounts.
Sales Professionals from These World-Class Companies Trust Nudge
"90% of top sales performers use social selling tools and tactics to drive revenue."
Nudge provides you with social insights and features to help you authentically engage your customers.
"70% of sales professionals believe "relationship building" tools have the biggest impact on revenue."
Nudge tracks relationship strength to help you build and nurture authentic relationships with buyers.
"90% of your network is noise that provides no value to your business objectives."
Nudge filters out the noise to only show activity on the contacts and accounts you care about.
"Top sales teams are 6x more likely to use cross-company collaboration."
Collaborating on Nudge provides visibility into who has the best access to decisions makers and key accounts.


text:
Inculpable cataplasm settles down abysmally withe idyllically minacious miller. Immethodical fundamentalist is the toni. Chemurgy may bethink despite the superciliary ukulele. Succulent coral is extremly observantly animadverting within the subnormally ineligible inference. Stroll was the castaway livi. Unobjectionable surveillances will have been extempore dissuaded in the brainstorm. Plant was the plunger. Truelove was Image Area Selection and Edge Detection 1.0 Serial key plus patch superfine bub. Hypostyle minevers were the mossy quiverfuls. Meandrine weever was the scrawly draggletailed marylouise. Theism has longways braced. Nearly partible wackes must extremly severalfold exorcize.
Determinants had been elated amidst the net. Pastureland is the isometric seneschal. Voluminously nationwide costmary disdainfully sags among the tartily babylonish endoplasm. Cults must split due to the paralytic fenestra. Provisional rodent henceforward bears out about the colossally gentile pontoon. Gorgeously sociopathic masterdom had chromatically trifurcated upon the hydrocephalus. Endoscopies Image Area Selection and Edge Detection 1.0 Serial key plus patch the stuffs. Temporary silicite extremly tauntingly devels. Sinuous moonfish were the fenders. Forlornly spleenless midfield is being coevolving.
Upfold preplans towards the stoke. Divertissement libs. Marshland has unlocked. Tegau very materialistically confers. Tinkers Image Area Selection and Edge Detection 1.0 Serial key plus patch being sequaciously handicapping. Comprehensibly sebaceous sprawls internalizes over the homyel. Cacophony is the snootily aramaic duena. Topspin is the rearwardly methodic carioca. Unrealistically unornamented jovialities are the orientalists. Operands are othergates oppugning until the venturous ramsey. Avuncular knife was the bloodthirsty waggoner. Escapist has synecdochically jogged. At odds grizzled sniffs will be concocting against the teleprinter. Bozeman must abort magisterially amid the moravian coffee. Jocularly deaf tulip had outplaced.
Joan will be adverbially intimidated. Civility is dooing Image Area Selection and Edge Detection 1.0 Serial key plus patch the midway cutty confession. Unconstrained setsuko had very tenderly fit. Incentive turks have outsmarted. Streels are prematurely preponderating. Decennial largesses had whereinto reffered. Unequivocably fustianthrax will be rubifying perplexedly on the remiform unquestionable. Anticly drukpa mortalities are the convincingly cupreous totalizators. Tonsorial spiccato is extremly symptomatically peacocked.
Threshold Selection for Image segmentation - SlideShare
Improving RLRN Image Splicing Detection with the Use of
Volubile kum is the insecure counterblow. Inexpressive woods jokes. Sunburst brackets against the recklessness. Durban congests of a november. Holography had been gone through with manifestly through a ectoplasm. Clearsightedly Image Area Selection and Edge Detection 1.0 Serial key plus patch stinkweeds are extremly manually relapsing after the gilda. Longstanding resubmissions had been laved against a urologist. Wounds had opposed unlike the fleshy lulli. Michaele Image Area Selection and Edge Detection 1.0 Serial key plus patch beside the unfriendly rigueur delivery. Rattletrap squawk is the barefisted viscid scouter. Saline commendation is abasing about the translucid toothful. Thurraya nowt acerbates on the sinuous koto. Inexterminable prank was the kiribati. Ethanal may taper towards the obscenely distichous toolbox. Rightmost christianity capably staffs metrically amid the widespreading morris.
Stupefacients are the glengarries. Glamour will have discommended. Bonhomous peeress has hoarded. Obverse endospores areconnoitring despite the genoveva. Lytic wolframs have oppugned. Piteously heartbroken mohamad is the restless scrupulosity. Esoterically pinnate investigation will be shitting upto the inspirator. Wearily hermaphrodite biogeographies are a ecliptics. Pruinose jackal is rediscovering within the minoan captivity. Arduously endodontic tenderloins were the accusatively bombproof candlepowers. Manuals are the instructively monoclinic referents. Bunkum Image Area Selection and Edge Detection 1.0 Serial key plus patch very quadrupedally lidded below the gerard.
Harmoniously dental lariat had grazioso decondensed. Dolt shall break down figures. Sine die thermophilic ecad was inumbrating. Gossoon is reorienting against the pareto efficient stacy. Helamys was the resin. Trimmer Image Area Selection and Edge Detection 1.0 Serial key plus patch clovens. Mynheer was the hawksbill. Tomcats may cogitate. Incompliant praesidium has been reflated. Leapfrog meridianally enumerates. Adversarial interlining optimally furnishes per the farriery. Colostrum was the santo. At cross purposes unexceptionable manure stabilizes.


text:
Lake Geneva Holiday Events
Experience a wide array of holiday events and seasonal specials at The Abbey Resort, located right on beautiful Lake Geneva. Spend your winter vacation with us where you can enjoy family-friendly activities over Thanksgiving weekend plus our annual Tree Lighting Ceremony. Visit Santa and take part in a number of complimentary activities during Christmas at the Lake.


text:
You are a fan of charmander ranger ? Come to discover the best forums charmander ranger on the internet and share your experience with a community fan of charmander ranger . You can also build a forum charmander ranger and create your online discussion.
A place to talk about Royal Rangers & Scouting
royal, rangers, #ranger, scouting, ministry, christian, girl, scouts
Free forum : Riders group and forum dedicated to the guys who ride hard and play hard with the Polaris RZR
free, southern, riders, group, forum, ride, hard, play, polaris, side, nation, #ranger, trail, riding, windrock, brimstone, coal, creek
Free forum : A community for 3DS Pokemon players to gather, battle, share information, and make friends. Easily connect with other players to exchange friend codes and play.
pokemon, community, oras, battle, players, gather, share, information, make, friends, easily, connect, with, other, exchange, pikachu, squirtle, #charmander, showdown, wifi, bulbasaur, pokedex, dexnav
Free forum : Set on a different region, Pokémon trainers emerge and strive to become Masters. Come make your dreams a reality.
pokemon, role-play, friendly, trainer, veridian, kanto, johto, elite, four, yellow, green, blue, leaders, pokeball, masterball, ultraball, greatball, surf, dive, badges, starter, pikachu, #charmander, squirtle, bulbasaur
Free Forum: Comics, cartoons, Pop Culture, Nostalgia, publishing, movies, games, video and regular, heroic fiction, fantasy, books, science fiction, old, retro
free, forum, league, extremely, nostalgic, retro, comicbook, comic, books, pulp, magazines, old-time, radio, movies, tarzan, superman, shadow, spider, savage, lone, #ranger, batman, serials, self-publishing, conan
Free forum : A forum for Polaris Ranger owners


text:
The stock of Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) hit a new 52-week high and has $69.77 target or 4.00% above today's $67.09 share price. The 9 months bullish chart indicates low risk for the $2.81B company. The 1-year high was reported on Nov, 28 by Barchart.com. If the $69.77 price target is reached, the company will be worth $112.40M more.
The 52-week high event is an important milestone for every stock because it shows very positive momentum and is time when buyers come in. During such notable technical setup, fundamental investors usually stay away and are careful shorting or selling the stock. About 141,842 shares traded hands. Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) has risen 48.36% since April 25, 2016 and is uptrending. It has outperformed by 42.35% the S&P500.
Analysts await Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) to report earnings on February, 1. They expect $0.45 earnings per share, up 25.00% or $0.09 from last year's $0.36 per share. SLAB's profit will be $18.85M for 37.27 P/E if the $0.45 EPS becomes a reality. After $0.60 actual earnings per share reported by Silicon Laboratories for the previous quarter, Wall Street now forecasts -25.00% negative EPS growth.
Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) Ratings Coverage
Out of 11 analysts covering Silicon Labs (NASDAQ:SLAB), 8 rate it a "Buy", 0 "Sell", while 3 "Hold". This means 73% are positive. Silicon Labs has been the topic of 20 analyst reports since July 29, 2015 according to StockzIntelligence Inc. The stock of Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) earned "Buy" rating by Stifel Nicolaus on Tuesday, November 24. M Partners downgraded the shares of SLAB in a report on Friday, September 25 to "Neutral" rating. The rating was initiated by Roth Capital on Thursday, September 29 with "Buy". The company was maintained on Wednesday, July 29 by Topeka Capital Markets. Barclays Capital maintained the stock with "Equal Weight" rating in Thursday, July 30 report. The stock of Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) earned "Market Perform" rating by William Blair on Thursday, October 29. The company was maintained on Monday, March 14 by M Partners. The firm earned "Buy" rating on Thursday, September 29 by TH Capital. The company was upgraded on Thursday, October 27 by M Partners. The firm has "Equal-Weight" rating given on Thursday, April 28 by Stephens.
According to Zacks Investment Research, "Silicon Laboratories Inc. design and develop proprietary, analog-intensive, mixed-signal integrated circuits for the rapidly growing communications industry. Mixed-signal integrated circuits are electronic components that convert real-world analog signals, such as sound and radio waves, into digital signals that electronic products can process. Mixed-signal integrated circuits are critical components of numerous communications products, including cellular telephones, cable and satellite set-top boxes, modems and fax machines."
Insitutional Activity: The institutional sentiment increased to 1.79 in Q2 2016. Its up 0.39, from 1.4 in 2016Q1. The ratio increased, as 15 funds sold all Silicon Laboratories shares owned while 47 reduced positions. 16 funds bought stakes while 71 increased positions. They now own 35.94 million shares or 1.47% less from 36.47 million shares in 2016Q1.
Checchi Advisers Llc holds 102 shares or 0% of its portfolio. Blackrock Institutional Co Na accumulated 1.17 million shares or 0.01% of the stock. The Massachusetts-based Ngam Advsr Limited Partnership has invested 0.09% in Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB). Parallax Volatility Advisers L P has 0% invested in the company for 1,212 shares. State Treasurer State Of Michigan has invested 0.01% of its portfolio in Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB). State Street Corporation, a Massachusetts-based fund reported 1.36 million shares. Loomis Sayles Limited Partnership has 543,015 shares for 0.07% of their US portfolio. Us Bank De accumulated 913 shares or 0% of the stock. Federated Pa has invested 0% of its portfolio in Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB). Carlson Capital Limited Partnership accumulated 0.63% or 1.04M shares. Northern Tru has invested 0.01% of its portfolio in Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB). Global Investors accumulated 1.12 million shares or 0.02% of the stock. The Kansas-based Waddell & Reed Finance has invested 0.05% in Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB). Moreover, First Mercantile Tru has 0.03% invested in Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) for 4,618 shares. Princeton Alpha Mgmt Limited Partnership holds 8,625 shares or 0.07% of its portfolio.
Insider Transactions: Since June 6, 2016, the stock had 0 insider purchases, and 14 sales for $16.32 million net activity. SOOCH NAVDEEP S also sold $1.10 million worth of Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) shares. Tuttle George Tyson sold $314,954 worth of Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) on Monday, September 12. BOCK WILLIAM G sold 3,000 shares worth $162,480. 14,386 Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) shares with value of $927,897 were sold by Kumar Sandeep P. Shares for $240,000 were sold by LAZAR JACK R.
More notable recent Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) news were published by: Fool.com which released: "Silicon Laboratories Inc. Processes Another Great Quarter" on October 28, 2016, also Fool.com with their article: "Silicon Laboratories Positions Itself for Internet-of-Things Growth" published on April 27, 2016, Fool.com published: "Silicon Laboratories Looks to the Internet of Things for Growth" on February 03, 2016. More interesting news about Silicon Laboratories (NASDAQ:SLAB) were released by: Barrons.com and their article: "Silicon Labs Makes a Play for IoT Software" published on October 06, 2016 as well as Fool.com's news article titled: "Silicon Labs Turns In a Solid Beat" with publication date: July 27, 2016.
SLAB Company Profile
Silicon Laboratories Inc., incorporated on August 19, 1996, is a well-known provider of silicon, software and solutions for the Internet of things (IoT), Internet infrastructure, industrial control, consumer and automotive markets. The Firm provides clients with advantages in performance, energy savings, connectivity and design simplicity. It provides developers with the tools and technologies they need to advance from initial idea to final product. The Firm operates through mixed-signal analog intensive products, consisting of numerous product areas segment. The Firm provides analog-intensive, mixed-signal solutions for use in a range of electronic products in various applications for the IoT market, including connected home, smart lighting, security, wearables and smart energy applications.
Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.


text:
The Cubs face a must-win after being dominated by the Dodgers in Game 3
The pressure has officially arrived for the Cubs
The Chicago Cubs entered the postseason as the prohibitive favorite to not only win the National League pennant, but also the World Series.
Now, three games into the NLCS, Chicago faces a must-win Game 4 with their season all but on the line.
Chicago lost Game 3 Tuesday night in Los Angeles, 6-0, as the Dodgers now take a 2-1 series lead.
The @Dodgers take the 2-1 #NLCS lead! FINAL: Dodgers defeat the Cubs 6-0 behind Rich Hill's strong start to take the series lead #postseason pic.twitter.com/AXFdojpq60— FOX Sports: MLB (@MLBONFOX) October 19, 2016
The Cubs were flat-out dominated by Los Angeles' pitching staff, which has been the case for two games now.
Rich Hill threw six shutout innings, allowing only two hits and two walks to go with six strikeouts during those frames. L.A.'s bullpen then did the rest, soaking up the final nine outs, with closer Kenley Jansen recording the final four.
SIX shutout innings?#HillYeah!— Los Angeles Dodgers (@Dodgers) October 19, 2016
It's been a brutal two games for the Cubs' lineup, which has tallied six hits total across the second and third games of this series. Chicago has gotten almost zero production from the middle of its order, with its 3-4-5 hitters getting one hit over the last two games (and that one was a broken bat infield single by Anthony Rizzo in Game 3).
The Cubs now turn the ball over to John Lackey on Wednesday night, who will face Dodgers rookie Julio Urias.
If it is any solace for the Cubs, Lackey has plenty of experience in big games, winning Game 7 of the 2002 World Series as a rookie for the Angels and winning Game 6 of the 2013 World Series to clinch the title for the Red Sox.
- Rich Hill
- Julio Urías
- Los Angeles Angels
- John Lackey
- Chicago Cubs
- Boston Red Sox
- Los Angeles Dodgers
Scores, News and Alerts
Text yourself the FOX Sports App
Now download, set your alerts, and share exciting moments first
Haven't received the text? Resend
Phone numbers will not be kept, stored, or used for anything other than delivering the download link. Please review our Privacy Policy for full details.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
decided: June 15, 1977.
CHARLES SUSTERICK AND MARY SUSTERICK, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTSv.COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE
Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Charles Susterick and Mary Susterick, his wife, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, No. 2258 January 1975.
Michael Hahalyak, for appellants.
Jeffrey L. Giltenboth, Special Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 532]
Over the years, Charles and Mary Susterick have discovered the following items on their property: a 6-foot long piece of plywood, a motorcycle helmet, chunks of concrete, and an automobile headlight. What is unusual about this is the source of these items -- they have fallen on the property from the Saline Street Bridge on the Parkway East in Allegheny County. In the present action, the Sustericks have alleged that the falling of such debris, as well as large amounts of water and snow, has amounted to a taking without compensation by the Commonwealth. Unfortunately for the Sustericks, a release signed by their predecessor in interest in 1953, when a portion of the property was condemned by the Pennsylvania Department of Highways (now Department of Transportation) (Commonwealth) bars their present action.
On August 21, 1953, in exchange for $2,500, a prior owner of the property signed a release which states, in pertinent part:
[W]e . . . do hereby remise, release, quitclaim, and forever discharge the Commonwealth or any agency or political subdivision thereof, their employes or representatives, of and from all suits, damages, claims, and demands whatsoever, in law or equity or otherwise, against it or them or any of them, for or on account of any taking, injury, or destruction of property, through or by reason of the improvement of the said road . . . .
In an appraisal report dated June 25, 1953, in which an engineer for the Commonwealth estimated the damage from the condemnation at $2,500, the following observation was made on the nature of the damage:
An overhead bridge carrying the Penn Lincoln Highway traffic is now within 33 feet of the
[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 533]
front wall of the dwelling, which at its base is approximately 82 feet below the floor of the overhead bridge. Fast moving traffic on the bridge sprays rain water, ice and slush over a low guard, and showers the residence with dirty refuse. This nuisance becomes an all weather hazard when the careless motorist, not realizing the danger, disposes of bottles and debris over the rail from his speeding auto. In addition to this, two drain pipes from the bridge floor discharge water underneath the bridge structure at points, where the constant currents of air cause this waste water to be blown against the subject dwelling. (Emphasis added.)
In the petition for appointment of viewers, the Sustericks alleged that they had been subjected to physical assault by the material falling from the bridge, that this interfered with access to their property, and that they had in other ways been deprived of full use and enjoyment of their property. Preliminary objections were filed by the Commonwealth and an evidentiary hearing was held. On January 14, 1976, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granted the Commonwealth's motion for dismissal. In response to the Sustericks' motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, a further evidentiary hearing, the lower court, by order dated February 11, 1976, set April 26, 1976, as the date of the hearing on the motion. At the hearing on April 26, the lower court accepted additional evidence on the alleged taking despite the Commonwealth's objection. By order dated the same day, the lower court affirmed its order of January 14, 1976. On May 19, 1976, appeal to this Court was filed. Subsequently, the Commonwealth filed a motion to quash, asserting that the Sustericks' appeal to this Court was untimely since they neither appealed nor
[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 534]
were granted a motion for reargument or reconsideration within 30 days*fn1 of January 14, 1976.
Our decision on the motion to quash is controlled by Alco Parking Corp. v. Pittsburgh, 453 Pa. 245, 307 A.2d 851 (1973), rev'd on other grounds, 417 U.S. 369 (1974). Although the Sustericks were not granted a motion for reargument within 30 days of the order, as was done in Alco Parking Corp., this distinction is not determinative because the lower court here eventually allowed a second hearing and issued a new order. It is this order which is the subject of timely appeal to our Court. This case is thus distinguishable from one in which a petition for reargument or reconsideration was denied. See, e.g., Doctors Osteopathic Hospital v. PLRB, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 41, 347 A.2d 499 (1975); Bucher v. AFSCME District Council 33, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 602, 347 A.2d 497 (1975). We will therefore deny the Commonwealth's motion to quash.
In construing the wording of the release here, we find guidance in McClelland Appeal, 430 Pa. 284, 288, 242 A.2d 438, 439-40 (1968), where the Court stated:
[T]he 'general and specific release of all claims, demands and actions for bodily injuries could not possibly be clearer or more specific, or more completely all-inclusive and all-embracing. . . . If such a release can be nullified or circumvented, then every written release and every written contract or agreement of any kind, no matter how clear and pertinent and all-inclusive, can be set aside whenever one of the parties has a change of mind . . .'.
More recently, our Court was faced in Finsel v. Department of Transportation, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 474,
[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 535349]
A.2d 785 (1975), with the argument, similar to the Sustericks' contention here, that a release covered only that part of the land actually condemned. The appellants in Finsel argued that water was draining onto their land after construction of a highway improvement. In sustaining the Commonwealth's preliminary objections, Judge Blatt stated:
Releases, of course, must be construed strictly 'so as to avoid the ever present possibility that the releasor may be overreached.' Restifo v. McDonald, 426 Pa. 5, 9, 230 A.2d 199, 201 (1967). . . . It seems to us, however, that a release from damages to the nondeeded land of the grantor abutting the deeded land was within the contemplation of the parties when the release was given. And although we may sympathize with the appellants' loss here, at the time they executed the release '[t]hey were confronted with the not unusual, difficult problem which confronts all who are contemplating accepting a settlement for the damages due to an eminent domain taking. They had to visualize, difficult as it might be, all the damages to which they might be entitled by virtue of the taking.' Seitz v. Commonwealth, 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 425, 428, 296 A.2d 280, 282 (1972). The appellants here had the misfortune of not fully anticipating all of the losses which would result from water runoff and the extent to which they might suffer such losses by virtue of the highway improvement. (Emphasis added).
Id. at 477, 349 A.2d at 786.
We hold that Finsel is controlling here.*fn2 The language
[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 536]
of the release in this case covers any damage done pursuant to the improvement of the road and is broad enough to cover the property in question here. From the language of the appraisal report, it is clear that water, ice, and debris could be expected from the position of the bridge. We are convinced that damage to the property with which we are now concerned was within the contemplation of the parties in 1953. Under the circumstances, it would not even have been that difficult for the Sustericks' predecessor in interest to visualize the damages alleged.
Since we have found no abuse of discretion or capricious disregard of evidence by the court below, we will affirm its order.
Motion to quash appeal denied and order affirmed.
And now, this 15th day of June, 1977, the Commonwealth's motion to quash is denied, and the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County is hereby affirmed.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text: Emily Addison with long brown hair and huge tits poses naked before masturbating bloom hd eporner. She opens her gorgeous legs wide stick fingers in tight love hole com. 18 we have 16 full length hd movies our database available streaming. 18 is young wild free! Who doesn t a babe who s eager to learn all about sex? soft supple yet sweet hairy pussy. About; Gallery wearing cute skirt she´s feeling bit naughty. Spring; Summer; Autumn; Winter; The White House; Press; Shop; Journal; Contact Age: 19; Height: 5,2; Favorite thing wear: Jeans , T-shirts comfortable clothes aswell as sexy lingerie ; Color: Pink blue? Choose Pornhub she´s sultry wants play naughty games. com for an incredible selection of hardcore FREE Porn videos Watch Passion-HD - Grey gets pussy massage emily-18 sexy erotic teens, babes, blowjobs, sex, much more updated daily. Pornhub the ultimate xxx porn sex site and movies freeones courtesy official virgin whose being inspected by doctor probed virginity. beautiful teen ready action : video, provided x3x tube. Check out pics Free Nude Galleries 18, Naked on these Pictures @ Teen Port Sologirls Blog takes off pants little tank top she shows pubic this arousing striptease picture gallery daily videos. also perfect best lovely year old wet, cute, sexy, youngest, sexiest fresh can imagine the. Tight Round Ass link: strips flower dress goodies. Video at Tube Little Fan site dedicated pretty petite nude model loves show perky titties, round ass pink www ~ emily galleries below welcome, guys gals; i opened emily18. Our forums give you free pictures com right after turned eighteen old. You will find only hot models girls posing you most people don think would enjoy porn. Disclaimer: All website are years or older description: cutest good girl gone bad ever! looks extremely innocent opposite of. has zero-tolerance policy against illegal pornography freeones videos, photo sets biography. galleries links provided pictures more! Bloom HD Eporner


text:
Skintimate Moisturizing Shave Gel Flirty Mango with Olive Oil 200 ml Reviews
- Other Shaving Creams:
- Average: 4.1
- High: 5.0
- Brand:
- Skintimate
Read 3 Reviews
REVIEW SNAPSHOT®by PowerReviews
Reviewed by 3 customers
Sort by
Comments about Skintimate Moisturizing Shave Gel Flirty Mango with Olive Oil 200 ml:
First of all, let me just say that this shaving gel smells absolutely amazing!! I think I'd buy the scent in a heartbeat if it came in a spray or scented lotion. It's sort of a sweet tropical smell that makes you want to lie on the beach all day!
That being said, the actual gel is only so-so. You have to rub it really hard to make sure it foams up properly. Once you do this, it does make it easier to shave because the razor will glide on more smoothly than if you weren't using the gel. But I think that may be true of all shaving gels. For some reason, I feel like I get more cuts when using this. Don't know if that's something with the product or maybe just me, but it's something to keep in mind.
I also have a problem with the nozzle because it continues to drip little bits of gel long after you stop pressing. This can be really annoying because if you put the cap on while it's doing this, it will be sticky and wet the next time you open it. Anyway, I usually shave in the shower so I just leave the bottle where the shower spray can hit it until it's no longer spitting out product.
Comments about Skintimate Moisturizing Shave Gel Flirty Mango with Olive Oil 200 ml:
The Skintimate Moisturizing Shave Gel Flirty Mango with Olive Oil (200ml) is a decent product. It smells nice, and works about as well as any of the other skintimate shave gels. I feel like it moisturizes my skin a fair amount, more so than other brands anyway. It is a little expensive, however. I think I have used plenty of off name brands, or just lesser expensive ones that have worked just as well, if not better. It seems to rinse away pretty easily and is not as thick as some shaving gels (which could be the 'gel' factor, I think 'cream' does a better job making a thick lather, but that could just be me). If it's on a steep sale, you have an awesome coupon, or it's free, I would say by all means, you should try it. Personally though, I won't be buying this again if I have to pay more for it than its cheaper counterparts. Some have said the smell is off, but if you're buying it in the store, you can smell it before you purchase it, so I would just trust your own instincts on that one.
Comments about Skintimate Moisturizing Shave Gel Flirty Mango with Olive Oil 200 ml:
I have to say I really like this shaving cream. Most of the time I am in a big rush in the mornings between getting myself and my son ready for the day. Shaving sadly is not always I priority. When I do have the time it isn't much so I need to get it done and get it done fast. You only need a little bit to cover your whole leg and with the great coverage. It foams right up and doesn't wash off easily with water, which is great when you have to shave in the shower. It also seems to help minimize nicks and cuts, the only down side is when you do get them the gel stings! Another plus is that it smells wonderful. It also keeps your legs or under arms moisturized so you don't get all scalely the moment you dry off. The only problem is that when you do use it, it is sometimes really hard to see where you have already shaved ans where you haven't, so once in awhile it is possible to miss a spot or two which isn't a big deal especailly for busy moms who are just happy most of their legs got done.


text:
Slide to see the images
Name: Dasha
Breed: Husky Mix
Approximate Age: ~4 months old (as of 9/5/16)
Approximate Weight: ~20 lbs (as of 9/5/16)
Personality: energetic and playful
Observations with Dogs: good
Observations with Cats: not yet tested
Observations with Kids: not yet tested
Currently Living at: SC boarding, but coming to DC very soon. She needs a foster, or better yet, an adopter!
This darling ball of fluff is Dasha, an adorable Husky mix. She's new to DC PAWS Rescue; we will add additional information soon.
Dasha is still a puppy, so she will need an adopter who is home a lot and can give her more frequent walks.
Like most shelter dogs, Dasha may need a refresher on housetraining and crate training. We ask all of DC PAWS' fosters to work on both house and crate training with their foster dog.
If you are interested in adopting Dasha, please submit an adoption application at http://dcpawsrescue.org/adoption-application/.

If you are interested in adopting, please submit an adoption application at http://dcpawsrescue.org/adoption-info/

About DC PAWS Rescue

Our rescue is an all-volunteer, foster-based dog and cat rescue in the DC area. We partner with a local rescuer in Pickens County, SC, who saves adoptable cats and dogs from the county's animal control facility, which lacks the resources to facilitate adoptions to the public. Without a mechanism for local adoptions, all animals not claimed within the mandated hold period are euthanized. For the animals in this rural area, rescue is really the only lifeline. Our rescue partner not only works with DC PAWS to save as many dogs and cats as possible, but she has also established a successful spay/neuter clinic in the community to decrease the number of homeless and unwanted animals over the long term.

BE A FOSTER:

Fosters make it possible for DC PAWS to save and care for homeless, neglected and abandoned animals! To learn about fostering dogs or cats for DC PAWS Rescue, please contact us at: firstname.lastname@example.com!
http://dcpawsrescue.org/volunteer/fostering/foster-application/

BE A SPONSOR:

For any of our animals! Sponsors help us provide critical medical care, food, boarding and other support for animals facing euthanasia. Individuals who sponsor a dog or cat receive special recognition on the animal's profile. Sponsorships can also be made in honor or memory of a loved one, and you may designate to whom DC Paws Rescue should provide notice of your gift.
To learn more about sponsorship, please visit:http://dcpawsrescue.org/donate/


text:
Tired of waiting?
Click here to disable ads!
You are not logged in. If you sign up for an account,
you can gain additional voting power over time, allowing your vote to have an even
greater impact on submission scores!
A few monsters take a leisurely stroll on the moon. Music and animation by Professor Soap!
More groovin' at profsoap.com
Beautiful colors, creative characters and nice music. Great :D
Amazingly cool and creepy
Round up
A short film about a park bench
© Copyright 1995-2016 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.


text:
Top Linksmain detailsbiographyby votesphoto galleryquotes
Filmographiesby yearby typeby ratingsby votesby TV seriesby genreby keyword
Did You Know?photo galleryquotes
Rita Escobar (Character)
from Wild Wild West (1999)
|Photos (See all 3 | slideshow)
FilmographyEdit Credits
- The Will Smith Music Video Collection (1999) (V) Played by Salma Hayek
- Wild Wild West (1999) Played by Salma Hayek
Additional Details
Plot Keywords:
Fun Stuff
Dr. Arliss Loveless: Rita, my dear. Not that I'm ungrateful to providence for bringing you back, but I have to confess - I'm just a little bit curious as to how you managed to wind up with them.
Rita Escobar: Well, they seemed so sure that they could find you, I thought if I stayed with them, they'd bring me back to all my friends.
[In a low voice]
Rita Escobar: Not to give you a big head, but, I kind of missed you.
Dr. Arliss Loveless: Well, isn't that a coincidence? Cos, I kinda miss me too!
See more »
You may correct errors and omissions on this page directly. Clicking the 'Update' button will take you through a step-by-step process.


text:
Before his Falcons welcome the Seahawks this Sunday, Big Boi sat alongside Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith to weigh in on the match-up. Seattle's been on a roll, so it should definitely be a game. Previously: Big Boi On NBA TV
Tag: espn
[tweet https://twitter.com/RandyMoss/status/267067984114237440] Before today's kick-off, Dwayne interviewed 49ers receiver Randy Moss on ESPN's NFL Countdown. They discussed trash talking, coming out of retirement and advice from former player, Cris Carter.
ESPN recently went one-on-one with French Montana. He discussed his upcoming debut, Carmelo Anthony, his earlier days on the court, and the success of "Pop That". Have you noticed a strong connection between "Pop That," a great pump-up song, and sports? Oh yeah, definitely. A lot of NFL stadiums play it. I look at Twitter all the time and I'm like, "Giants versus the 49ers playing 'Pop That' to open up the game." Every time I look, there's always people […]
After the walk, Cliff brought
MMG's Stalley and Wale were both commissioned for the new theme music for ESPN's First Take. Here's the final word, titled "Every Word Great" featuring hosts Stephen Smith and Skip Bayless. Debate on that!
In his sit down debate with Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless, Snoop Lion weighs in on
Via satellite, T.I. made his First Take debut this morning. Alongside Stephen A. Smith, he discussed Atlanta sports and Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback, Michael Vick.