conjunctive test in Pennsylvania

2018The Superior Court, applying a conjunctive test, has stated that" ... an arrest exists when (1) the police intended to take appellant into custody, and (2) appellant was subjected to the actual control and will of the police " Commonwealth v Hannon, 837 A.2d 551, 553, 554 (Pa. Super. 2003), citing Commonwealth v. Lovette, 450 A.2d 975, 978 (Pa. 1982) The Court further stated that the "test is an objective test, and all circumstances must be viewed 'in the light of the reasonable impression conveyed to the person subjected to the seizure.' " Hannon, 837 A.2d at 554 , quoting Commonwealth v. But

2017Under the conjunctive test, an arrest exists when (1) the police intended to take appellant into custody, and (2) appellant was subjected to the actual control and will of the police. [Commonwealth v. Lovette, 450 A.2d 975, 978 (Pa. 1982).] This test is an objective test, and all circumstances must be viewed “in the light of the reasonable impression conveyed to the person subjected to the seizure.” Commonwealth v. Butler, 729 A.2d 1134, 1137 (Pa.Super. 1999), Commonwealth v. Douglass, 539 A.2d 412, 419 (Pa.Super. 1988). -6- J.

2018The Superior Court, applying a conjunctive test, has stated that" ... an arrest exists when (1) the police intended to take appellant into custody, and (2) appellant was subjected to the actual control and will of the police " Commonwealth v Hannon, 837 A.2d 551, 553, 554 (Pa. Super. 2003), citing Commonwealth v. Lovette, 450 A.2d 975, 978 (Pa. 1982) The Court further stated that the "test is an objective test, and all circumstances must be viewed 'in the light of the reasonable impression conveyed to the person subjected to the seizure.' " Hannon, 837 A.2d at 554 , quoting Commonwealth v. But

2018The Superior Court, applying a conjunctive test, has stated that" ... an arrest exists when (1) the police intended to take appellant into custody, and (2) appellant was subjected to the actual control and will of the police " Commonwealth v Hannon, 837 A.2d 551, 553, 554 (Pa. Super. 2003), citing Commonwealth v. Lovette, 450 A.2d 975, 978 (Pa. 1982) The Court further stated that the "test is an objective test, and all circumstances must be viewed 'in the light of the reasonable impression conveyed to the person subjected to the seizure.' " Hannon, 837 A.2d at 554 , quoting Commonwealth v. But

2018The Superior Court, applying a conjunctive test, has stated that" ... an arrest exists when (1) the police intended to take appellant into custody, and (2) appellant was subjected to the actual control and will of the police " Commonwealth v Hannon, 837 A.2d 551, 553, 554 (Pa. Super. 2003), citing Commonwealth v. Lovette, 450 A.2d 975, 978 (Pa. 1982) The Court further stated that the "test is an objective test, and all circumstances must be viewed 'in the light of the reasonable impression conveyed to the person subjected to the seizure.' " Hannon, 837 A.2d at 554 , quoting Commonwealth v. But

2017Under the conjunctive test, an arrest exists when (1) the police intended to take appellant into custody, and (2) appellant was subjected to the actual control and will of the police. [Commonwealth v. Lovette, 450 A.2d 975, 978 (Pa. 1982).] This test is an objective test, and all circumstances must be viewed “in the light of the reasonable impression conveyed to the person subjected to the seizure.” Commonwealth v. Butler, 729 A.2d 1134, 1137 (Pa.Super. 1999), Commonwealth v. Douglass, 539 A.2d 412, 419 (Pa.Super. 1988). -6- J.

2009Abuse of process cases frequently turn on the second element of this three-part conjunctive test, and, hence, the courts of this Commonwealth have had little opportunity to discuss the third element of harm caused to the plaintiff. ¶ 3 In Shiner v. Moriarty, 706 A.2d 1228 (Pa.Super.1998), although it reversed the verdict on the plaintiffs’ abuse of process claim on the grounds that such was preempted by the Bankruptcy Code, this Court arguably suggested that emotional harm is compensable in an abuse of process action by affirming the award of damages for emotional distress without differentiat

2009Abuse of process cases frequently turn on the second element of this three-part conjunctive test, and, hence, the courts of this Commonwealth have had little opportunity to discuss the third element of harm caused to the plaintiff. ¶ 3 In Shiner v. Moriarty, 706 A.2d 1228 (Pa.Super.1998), although it reversed the verdict on the plaintiffs' abuse of process claim on the grounds that such was preempted by the Bankruptcy Code, this Court arguably suggested that emotional harm is compensable in an abuse of process action by affirming the award of *23 damages for emotional distress without differen

2017Under the conjunctive test, an arrest exists when (1) the police intended to take appellant into custody, and (2) appellant was subjected to the actual control and will of the police. [Commonwealth v. Lovette, 450 A.2d 975, 978 (Pa. 1982).] This test is an objective test, and all circumstances must be viewed “in the light of the reasonable impression conveyed to the person subjected to the seizure.” Commonwealth v. Butler, 729 A.2d 1134, 1137 (Pa.Super. 1999), Commonwealth v. Douglass, 539 A.2d 412, 419 (Pa.Super. 1988). -6- J.

2014As Turner relies on Gwynn and Gwynn cited to Commonwealth v. Lovette, 450 A.2d 975 (Pa. 1982), we have utilized the Lovette standard, which uses the conjunctive test. 7 We are aware that the decision in Commonwealth v. Douglass, 539 A.2d 412 (Pa.Super. 1988), was decided by a three judge panel with two judges concurring in result.

2025Instead, the Commonwealth claims that that both cases ratify and extend Walton into a conjunctive test: “subsection 6106(b)(6) permits an individual to carry a concealed firearm only: (1) if his or her employment qualifies under the subsection; and (2) he or she carries a concealed firearm while discharging his or her duty to protect -6- J-S16010-25 money, valuables[,] and other property.” See id. at 19 ; see also id. at 15 (quoting Scott, 176 A.3d at 288-89).

2025Instead, the Commonwealth claims that that both cases ratify and extend Walton into a conjunctive test: “subsection 6106(b)(6) permits an individual to carry a concealed firearm only: (1) if his or her employment qualifies under the subsection; and (2) he or she carries a concealed firearm while discharging his or her duty to protect -6- J-S16010-25 money, valuables[,] and other property.” See id. at 19 ; see also id. at 15 (quoting Scott, 176 A.3d at 288-89).

2024With respect to the promptness of the petition to open, the trial court explained that there is no bright-line test and promptness is measured by considering “(1) the length of delay between discovery of the entry of a default judgment; and (2) the reason for the delay.” Id. at 11 (quoting Dumoff v. Spencer, 754 A.2d 1280, 1282 (Pa. Super. 2000)).

2007See, e.g., Pittsburgh Palisades, 585 Pa. at 207 , 888 A.2d at 662 ; Consumer Party of Pennsylvania, 510 Pa. at 170 , 507 A.2d at 329 .

2007See, e.g., Pittsburgh Palisades, 585 Pa. at 207 , 888 A.2d at 662 ; Consumer Party of Pennsylvania, 510 Pa. at 170 , 507 A.2d at 329 .

2003We note, however, that the use of a disjunctive test would require us to call an investigative detention an “arrest” because “every Terry stop involves both a stop and a period of detention during which the suspect is not free to leave but is subject to the control of the police officer.” Commonwealth v. White, 358 Pa.Super. 120 , 516 A.2d 1211, 1217 (1986).

2003We note, however, that the use of a disjunctive test would require us to call an investigative detention an “arrest” because “every Terry stop involves both a stop and a period of detention during which the suspect is not free to leave but is subject to the control of the police officer.” Commonwealth v. White, 358 Pa.Super. 120 , 516 A.2d 1211, 1217 (1986).

2003See, e.g., Delaware County Lodge No. 27, Fraternal Order of Police, 690 A.2d at 757 (“[T]he [two-part] test applied by the [Board] and this Court to determine whether an employee is a ‘police’ officer for purposes of Act 111, is a conjunctive test which requires that both prongs be satisfied.