2015 Pa. Super. 18 - Sisson, D. & M. v. Stanley, J.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In paragraph 1, counsel indicates he searched the records in the Recorder of Deeds Office of Susquehanna County. In their action, [the plaintiffs] named Joseph Stanley, his heirs, successors, executors, assigns, and any persons claiming by, through, or from them. One would presuppose that a good faith effort to locate heirs would include a search for records at the Register of Wills office. Although counsel notes that the Recorder of Deeds office in Susquehanna County also houses the Register of Wills, his affidavit only mentions a search of the Recorder of Deeds records. Counsel already had the relevant deeds to the property in which Joseph M. Stanley transferred real property to Pauline M. Battista subject to a reservation of rights in the underlying oil and gas. It is therefore not clear what counsel hoped to gain from his search of the Recorder of Deeds office. Regardless, the affidavit does not indicate in any manner that a relevant search was performed to locate any wills or other probate records. A good faith search for heirs should have included at least this basic research. Had this been done, counsel would have found, as the trial court noted, the will of E.J, Stanley, Joseph’s father, which identified no fewer than twelve siblings to Joseph. Concerning paragraph 2 of the affidavit, counsel apparently did not consider that some or all of Joseph M. Stanley’s heirs could have moved since 1953. A search of local telephone directories is certain to be fruitless if any s”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Northern Forests II, Inc. v. Keta Realty Co.

2. “Due process of law requires an adequate investigation for interested parties. Courts have repeatedly expressed the importance of proper service of process. 'Service of process by publication is an extraordinary measure and great pains should be taken to ensure that the defendant will receive actual notice of the action against him. ' Fusco v. Hill Fin. Sav. Ass'n, 453 Pa.Super. 216 , 683 A.2d 677 , 680 (1996). 'Due process, reduced to its most elemental component, requires notice.' PNC Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs, 929 A.2d 219 , 230 (Pa. Super. 2007).... As our federal courts have observed: 'Service of process is not a mere technicality. Rather, constitutional due process requires that service of process be 'reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Calabro v. Leiner, 464 F.Supp.2d 470 , 471 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) ). To this end, Rule 430(a) applies only where 'service cannot be made' in the normal fashion. Pa.R.C.P. No. 430(a)....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re: Escheatment of Matured, Unredeemed, and Unclaimed US Savings Bonds with Purchasers' Addresses in the Commonwealth of PA Petition of: PA State Treasurer, Joseph M. Torsella

3. “(a) If service cannot be made under the applicable rule the plaintiff may move the court for a special order directing the method of service. The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the nature and extent'of the investigation which has been made to determine the whereabouts of the defendant and the reasons why service cannot be made (b)(2) When service is made by publication upon the heirs and assigns of a named former owner or party in interest, thé court may permit publication against the heirs or assigns generally if it is set forth in the complaint or an affidavit that they are unknown.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Northern Forests II, Inc. v. Keta Realty Co.