Hamilton analysis in Pennsylvania

2015In addition to agreeing with Judge Hamilton’s analysis of Rules 1(A) and 48(D) of the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) Code, see id. at 795-96 (Hamilton, J., dissenting), I am aligned with his position that it is not the courts’ role to compensate for the negligence of an entity presenting a form contract in a consumer-oriented setting which this entity knew or should have known could not be enforced on its own terms.

2015In Green , Judge - Hamilton opined, as our Supreme Court did in Wert , that the arbitration agreement at issue in Green was unenforceable in part because “[t]he terms of the parties’ contract require application of the [NAF] Code ... [and t]he [NAF] Code requires that it be administered only by the [NAF].” Id. at 795 (Hamilton, J., dissenting). 4 The Chief Justice explicitly stated that he agreed with Judge Hamilton’s analysis regarding Rule 1(A) of the NAF Code, which specifies that only the NAF can administer it.

2015Wert, supra at 1262 (Saylor, C.J., concurring).

2015Wert, supra at *10 (Saylor, C.J., concurring).

2021Commonwealth v. Lee, 206 A.3d 1, 10 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en banc), allocatur denied, 218 A.3d 851 (Pa. 2019); Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359, 366 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90, 94 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2021See id. (analysis must also include whether parent’s attempt to reaffirm parental duties after a period of absence will be harmful to child); see also C.M.W., 603 A.2d at 622 (reversing termination of parental rights where record contained clear and convincing evidence of parent’s 13 Though we approve of Hamilton’s analysis regarding its reversal of the termination of parental rights decree on Subsection 2511(a)(1) grounds, we note the case, decided in 1988, is subject to the same shortcomings as Orwick and its progeny decided prior to the 1992 enactment of the provision in its current form, t

2021See Bowman, 666 A.2d at 276 n.2 (opinion in support of reversal); Hamilton, 549 A.2d at 1294-96 ; Orwick, 347 A.2d 679 n.3, 680. [J-30-2021] - 38 attempts to locate child through Domestic Relations Office and IRS after custodial parent changed name and moved to unlisted address in another county without notice).

2021See Bowman, 666 A.2d at 276 n.2 (opinion in support of reversal); Hamilton, 549 A.2d at 1294-96 ; Orwick, 347 A.2d 679 n.3, 680. [J-30-2021] - 38 attempts to locate child through Domestic Relations Office and IRS after custodial parent changed name and moved to unlisted address in another county without notice).

2021See id. (analysis must also include whether parent’s attempt to reaffirm parental duties after a period of absence will be harmful to child); see also C.M.W., 603 A.2d at 622 (reversing termination of parental rights where record contained clear and convincing evidence of parent’s 13 Though we approve of Hamilton’s analysis regarding its reversal of the termination of parental rights decree on Subsection 2511(a)(1) grounds, we note the case, decided in 1988, is subject to the same shortcomings as Orwick and its progeny decided prior to the 1992 enactment of the provision in its current form, t

2021Commonwealth v. Lee, 206 A.3d 1, 10 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en banc), allocatur denied, 218 A.3d 851 (Pa. 2019); Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359, 366 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90, 94 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2021Commonwealth v. Lee, 206 A.3d 1, 10 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en banc), allocatur denied, 218 A.3d 851 (Pa. 2019); Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359, 366 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Furgess, 149 A.3d 90, 94 (Pa. Super. 2016).