answer hearing in Pennsylvania

2023If the answer to that inquiry is affirmative, then the convicted criminal is entitled to specific performance of the term.” Commonwealth v. Martinez, 147 A.3d 517, 532-33 ([Pa.] 2016) (some internal citations omitted).

2022If the answer to that inquiry is affirmative, then the convicted criminal is entitled to specific performance of the term.” Id. at 532-533 .

2025This Court has stated: When a trial court adjudges someone in contempt of a custody order, five procedural elements are recommended to ensure due process: “(1) a rule to show cause why attachment should issue; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication.” Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230, 1234-35 (Pa.Super. 2009).

2021When a trial court adjudges someone in contempt of a custody order, five procedural elements are recommended to ensure due process: “(1) a rule to show cause why attachment should issue; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication.” Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230, 1234-35 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2019In addition, we noted the “five elements deemed essential to a civil contempt adjudication,” which include: “(1) a rule to show cause why attachment should issue; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication.” Id. (quoting Cahalin v. Goodman, 421 A.2d 696, 698 (Pa.Super. 1980)).

2002Thus, we conclude that the trial court’s decision is not supported by facts of record. ¶ 11 We are also aware that the five elements deemed essential to a civil contempt adjudication are: “(1) a rule to show cause why attachment should issue; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication.” Cahalin v. Goodman, 280 Pa.Super. 228 , 421 A.2d 696, 698 (1980).

2022Cleary v. Dep’t of Transp., 919 A.2d 368, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). ‘Fulfillment of all five factors is not mandated, however. ‘[W]hen the contempt proceedings are predicated on a violation of a court order that followed a full hearing, due process requires no more than notice of the violations alleged and an opportunity for explanation and defense.’’ Wood v. Geisenhemer-Shaulis, 827 A.2d 1204, 1208 (Pa. Super. 2003) (quoting Diamond v. Diamond, 792 A.2d 597, 601 (Pa. Super. 2002))[.] Honore, 150 A.3d at 526 (quoting W.

2016Cleary v. Dep't of Transp., 919 A.2d 368, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

2018Trial courts generally follow a five-step process in determining whether a trial court complied with the procedural requirements for a finding of contempt: "(1) a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue, (2) an answer and hearing, (3) a rule absolute, (4) a hearing on the contempt citation, and (5) an adjudication." Wood v. Geisenhemer-Shaulis , 827 A.2d 1204 , 1208 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quotation omitted).

2017Trial courts generally follow a five-step process: “(1) a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue, (2) an answer and hearing, (3) a rule absolute, (4) a hearing on the contempt citation, and (5) an adjudication.” Wood v. Geisenhemer-Shaulis, 827 A.2d 1204, 1208 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quotation omitted).

2022Cleary v. Dep’t of Transp., 919 A.2d 368, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). ‘Fulfillment of all five factors is not mandated, however. ‘[W]hen the contempt proceedings are predicated on a violation of a court order that followed a full hearing, due process requires no more than notice of the violations alleged and an opportunity for explanation and defense.’’ Wood v. Geisenhemer-Shaulis, 827 A.2d 1204, 1208 (Pa. Super. 2003) (quoting Diamond v. Diamond, 792 A.2d 597, 601 (Pa. Super. 2002))[.] Honore, 150 A.3d at 526 (quoting W.

2018However, we have held that "[f]ulfillment of all five factors is not mandated." Id. "[W]hen the contempt proceedings are predicated on a violation of a court order that followed a full hearing, due process requires no more than notice of the violations alleged and an opportunity for explanation and defense." Id. (quoting Diamond v. Diamond , 792 A.2d 597 , 601 (Pa. Super. 2002) ).

2022Appeal Bd. (Madara), 423 A.2d 1125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (holding that when a defendant fails to file an answer to a claim petition within the statutory answering period, the WCJ must deem the factual allegations within the claim petition as having been admitted); Hawbaker v. Workers’ Comp.

2015Under Yellow Freight, Inc. v. WCAB [Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board ] (Madara) [ 56 Pa.Cmwlth. 1 ], 423 A.2d 1125 (Pa.Cmwlth.1981), and Section 416 of the Workers’ Compensation [Act] Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 821, a claimant can motion for a workers’ compensation judge to close the record and issue a decision based upon the petition itself if the employer failed to file an answer to the claim petition within 20 days time.

2017Father asserts that there is a five-step process in a civil contempt proceeding — “(1) a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue, (2) an answer and hearing, (3) a rule absolute (arrest), (4) a hearing on the contempt citation, and (5) an adjudication of contempt.” Father’s Brief at 5, 10 (citing, among other cases, Crislip v. Harshman, 365 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. 1976)).

1998Namely, the court must undertake: “1) a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue, 2) an answer and hearing, 3) rule absolute (arrest), 4) a hearing on contempt citation, and 5) an adjudication of contempt.” Crislip v. Harshman, 243 Pa.Super. 349, 352 , 365 A.2d 1260, 1261 (1976).

2021Clearly, because the trial court held a hearing and ruled on the Motion immediately thereafter from the bench, it did not undertake “(1) a rule to show cause; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication of contempt.” Cullen, 849 A.2d at 1211 (quoting Lachat, 769 A.2d at 489 ).

2019Much like in a civil lawsuit, before holding an individual in civil contempt, "the court must undertake (1) a rule to show cause; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication of contempt." Lachat , 769 A.2d at 489 , citing McMahon v. McMahon , 706 A.2d 350 , 356 (Pa.Super. 1998).

2021Further, Appellants note that “[p]rocedurally, the One Meridian Partners, LLP v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Phila., 867 A.2d 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). 12 court must undertake: (1) a rule to show cause; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication of contempt.” Appellants’ Br. at 32 (citing McMahon v. McMahon, 706 A.2d 350, 356 (Pa. Super. 1998)).

2019Much like in a civil lawsuit, before holding an individual in civil contempt, "the court must undertake (1) a rule to show cause; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication of contempt." Lachat , 769 A.2d at 489 , citing McMahon v. McMahon , 706 A.2d 350 , 356 (Pa.Super. 1998).

2025If the answer to that inquiry is affirmative, then the convicted criminal is entitled to specific performance of the term.” Id. at 613 (citation omitted).

2025This Court has stated: “In determining whether a particular plea agreement has been breached, we look to ‘what the parties to this plea agreement reasonably understood to be the terms of the agreement.’” Such ____________________________________________ that “a collateral petition to enforce a plea agreement is regularly treated as outside the ambit of the PCRA and under the contractual enforcement theory of specific performance.” Thurmon’s Brief at 9 (quoting Kerns, 220 A.3d at 611–12); see also Commonwealth v. Lacombe234 A.3d 602, 618 (Pa. 2020) (declining “to find the PCRA, or any other pro

2021Clearly, because the trial court held a hearing and ruled on the Motion immediately thereafter from the bench, it did not undertake “(1) a rule to show cause; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication of contempt.” Cullen, 849 A.2d at 1211 (quoting Lachat, 769 A.2d at 489 ).

2010Furthermore, “When holding a person in civil contempt, the court must undertake (1) a rule to show cause; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication of contempt.” In re Contempt of Cullen, 849 A.2d 1207, 1211 (Pa.Super.2004).

1968In determining whether an intervening force is a superseding cause, the Supreme Court in Hendricks v. Pyramid Motor Freight Corp., 328 Pa. 570, 574 , stated: ‘The answer to this inquiry depends on whether the (intervening) conduct was so extraordinary as not to have been reasonably foreseeable, or whether it was reasonably to be anticipated.’ Restatement, Torts, sec. 435(2) ; Road- *354 man v. Bellone, 379 Pa. 483, 492, 493 ; Thornton, Admrx. v. Weaber, Admr., 380 Pa. 590, 595 . “ ‘The question of what is the proximate cause of an accident is almost always one of fact for the jury:’ Ashby v. P

1957In determining whether an intervening force is a superseding cause, the Supreme Court in Hendricks v. Pyramid Motor Freight Corp., 328 Pa. 570, 574 , stated: ‘The answer to this inquiry depends on whether the (intervening) conduct was so extraordinary as not to have been reasonably foreseeable, or whether it was reasonably to be anticipated:’ Restatement, Torts, sec. 435 (2) ; Roadman v. Bellone, 379 Pa. 483, 492, 493 ; Thornton, Admrw. v. Weaber, Admr., 380 Pa. 590, 595 . “ ‘The question of what is the proximate cause of an accident is almost always one of fact for the jury:’ Ashby v. Phila.

2025This Court has stated: “In determining whether a particular plea agreement has been breached, we look to ‘what the parties to this plea agreement reasonably understood to be the terms of the agreement.’” Such ____________________________________________ that “a collateral petition to enforce a plea agreement is regularly treated as outside the ambit of the PCRA and under the contractual enforcement theory of specific performance.” Thurmon’s Brief at 9 (quoting Kerns, 220 A.3d at 611–12); see also Commonwealth v. Lacombe234 A.3d 602, 618 (Pa. 2020) (declining “to find the PCRA, or any other pro

2017When a dispute over any particular term of a plea agreement arises, courts will examine “what the parties to this plea agreement reasonably understood to be the terms of the agreement.” Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444, 447 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Fruehan, 557 A.2d 1093, 1095 (Pa. Super. 1989) (internal citations omitted)).

2021Mother, who represents herself, pro se, does not appear to have filed a brief in response to Father’s three appeals. - 11 - J-S09001-21 elements deemed essential to a civil contempt adjudication are: (1) a rule to show cause why attachment should issue; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication.” Id. at 369 (citation and original quotation marks omitted).

2021Chrysczanavicz v. Chrysczanavicz, 796 A.2d 366, 368-369 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citations, quotation marks, and original brackets omitted). “[T]he five elements deemed essential to a civil contempt adjudication are: (1) a rule to show cause why attachment should issue; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication.” Id. at 369 (citation and original quotation marks omitted).

2019As in all contracts: “The laws in force at the time the parties enter into a contract are merged with the other obligations [which] are specifically set forth in the agreement.” Empire Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Com., Dept. of Environmental Resources, 546 Pa. 315, 340 , 684 A.2d 1047, 1059 (1996); Nase, supra (stating guilty plea to crime that is subject to existing sex- offender registration requirements makes registration consequences unequivocally part of plea negotiations and arrangement).

2019As in all contracts: “The laws in force at the time the parties enter into a contract are merged with the other obligations [which] are specifically set forth in the agreement.” Empire Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Com., Dept. of Environmental Resources, 546 Pa. 315, 340 , 684 A.2d 1047, 1059 (1996); Nase, supra (stating guilty plea to crime that is subject to existing sex- offender registration requirements makes registration consequences unequivocally part of plea negotiations and arrangement).

1984Specifically, appellants claim that the procedure employed by the trial court lacked the following five essential elements enunciated in Crislip v. Harshman, supra: 1) a rule to show cause why attachment should not issue; 2) an answer and hearing; 3) a rule absolute (arrest); 4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and 5) an adjudication of contempt. 243 Pa.Super. at 352 , 365 A.2d at 1261 ; see also Alternóse Construction Co. v. Building and Trades Council of Philadelphia, 449 Pa. 194 , 296 A.2d 504 (1972).

1984Specifically, appellants claim that the procedure employed by the trial court lacked the following five essential elements enunciated in Crislip v. Harshman, supra: 1) a rule to show cause why attachment should not issue; 2) an answer and hearing; 3) a rule absolute (arrest); 4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and 5) an adjudication of contempt. 243 Pa.Super. at 352 , 365 A.2d at 1261 ; see also Alternóse Construction Co. v. Building and Trades Council of Philadelphia, 449 Pa. 194 , 296 A.2d 504 (1972).

2021If the answer to that inquiry is affirmative, then the convicted criminal is entitled to specific performance of the term.” As in all contracts: “The laws in force at the time the parties enter into a contract are merged with the other obligations [which] are specifically set forth in the agreement.” [Commonwealth v. Nase, 104 A.3d 528, 534 (Pa. Super. 2014)] (stating guilty plea to crime that is subject to existing sex-offender registration -9- J-S44044-20 requirements makes registration consequences unequivocally part of plea negotiations and arrangement).

2019As in all contracts: “The laws in force at the time the parties enter into a contract are merged with the other obligations [which] are specifically set forth in the agreement.” Empire Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Com., Dept. of Environmental Resources, 546 Pa. 315, 340 , 684 A.2d 1047, 1059 (1996); Nase, supra (stating guilty plea to crime that is subject to existing sex- offender registration requirements makes registration consequences unequivocally part of plea negotiations and arrangement).

2022Heraeus, 697 A.2d at 608 . “[A]n employer [that] files a late answer is still entitled to an opportunity to prove events, such as changes in disability, that may have occurred after the last day when the late answer should have been filed.” Rite Aid, 709 A.2d at 449 (emphasis added); accord Heraeus, 697 A.2d at 608 .

2022Heraeus, 697 A.2d at 608 . “[A]n employer [that] files a late answer is still entitled to an opportunity to prove events, such as changes in disability, that may have occurred after the last day when the late answer should have been filed.” Rite Aid, 709 A.2d at 449 (emphasis added); accord Heraeus, 697 A.2d at 608 .

1993There we stated that civil contempt was a several step process: “rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue, an answer and hearing, rule absolute (arrest), hearing on the contempt citation, adjudication of contempt.” 434 Pa. at 6 , 253 A.2d at 266 .

1993There we stated that civil contempt was a several step process: “rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue, an answer and hearing, rule absolute (arrest), hearing on the contempt citation, adjudication of contempt.” 434 Pa. at 6 , 253 A.2d at 266 .

2025Id. at 612-13 (cleaned up).

2024Co.), 646 A.2d 633, 636 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (holding that where the claimant did not raise the timeliness of the employer’s answer to his claim petition until after the referee closed the record, he failed to preserve the issue for appellate review); Ellzey v. Gwynedd Twp.