The Standard of Review

Latest Episodes:

Firearm Owners Against Crime v. Paris Oct 20, 2026

Show notes

Host Corrie Woods interviews Attorney Joshua Prince of Prince Law Offices P.C. and Civil Rights Defense Firm P.C. about Firearms Owners Against Crime v. Paris, which recognized that declaratory relief is an independently valuable form of relief in actions against the government and held that the Pennsylvania State Police conducting firearms purchase background checks have an obligation to proceed as expeditiously as possible given their resources. The decision clarifies an important point about remedies against the government for violating individual civil rights.

You can find Justice Mundy's majority opinion, as well as Chief Justice Todd's concurring and dissenting opinion on SCOPABlog's May 2025 Docket Review.

Be sure to subscribe to SCOPABlog for monthly docket reviews, and notifications when new podcast episodes drop.

Thanks as always to our producers, Ashley Woods, Rachel Annevelink, and Jaron Drake, for their hard work in making this episode a reality.

Glover v. Junior Aug 19, 2026

Show notes

Send us Fan Mail

Host Corrie Woods interviews Attorneys Megan Watson and Jackie DiColo of BKW Family LAW to discuss Glover v. Junior, which held for the first time that parents who use alternative reproductive technlogy, or ART, can prove parentage through an intent-based framework as opposed to a contract-based one. The decision is major step in modernizing longstanding family-law principles to modern scientific and social realities of parenthood, and a long-awaiting sign of respect for parents and families brought about by ART.

You can find Justice Dougherty's majority opinion, as well as Justice Brobson's concurrence, on SCOPABlog's March 2025 Docket Review.

And while you're at it, make sure to subscribe to SCOPABlog for monthly docket reviews, and notifications when new episodes drop.

Thanks as always to our producers, Ashley Woods, Rachel Annevelink, and Jaron Drake, for their hard work in making this episode.

Clean Air Council v. DEP Mar 30, 2026

Show notes

Send us Fan Mail

Host Corrie Woods interviews Attorney Alex Bomstein to discuss Clean Air Council v. DEP, which clarified the circumstances under which parties challenging permits under the Clean Streams Law can recover attorney's fees from permittees. The decision is a significant win for private enforcement of environmental rights, and also serves as an excellent discussion of the principle that statutory discretion imports statutory purpose.

You can find Justice Wecht's majority opinion, as well as Justice Mundy's dissent, on SCOPABlog's February 2023 Docket Review.

You can also find Clean Air Council's podcast, On Air with Clean Air Council, on your podcatcher of choice.

And while you're at it, make sure to subscribe to SCOPABlog for monthly docket reviews, and notifications when new episodes drop.

Thanks as always to our producers, Ashley Woods, Rachel Annevelink, and Jaron Drake, for their hard work in making this episode a reality.

Salsburg v. Mann Feb 28, 2026

Show notes

Send us Fan Mail

Host Corrie Woods interviews Timothy Kolman to discuss Salsberg v. Mann, which held that an employee could bring a claim for intentional interference with an employment relationship against a supervisor who terminated her for personal reasons. The decision is one of a series over the past few years in which the Court has taken a robust view of workers' rights.
You can find Justice Brobson's majority opinion, as well as Justice Wecht's concurrence, and Chief Justice Todd's and Justice Mundy's concurrence/dissents, at SCOPABlog.

And while you're at it, make sure to subcribe to SCOPAblog to receive monthly docket reviews, and notifications when new episodes drop.

Thanks as always to our producers, Ashley Woods, Rachel Annevelink, and Jaron Drake, for their hard work in making this episode a reality.

Greenwood Gaming v. Dept. of Revenue Nov 10, 2025

Show notes

Send us Fan Mail

Host Corrie Woods interviews Casey Alan Coyle to discuss Greenwood Gaming v. Dept. of Revenue, which clarified how the state-run lottery and private casinos must share (or, rather, not share) space in Pennsylvania's increasingly complex gaming market.

You can find Justice Donohue's opinion for the Court and Justice Mundy's concurring and dissenting opinion on SCOPABlog.

And while you're at it, subcribe to SCOPAblog to receive monthly docket reviews, and notifications when new episodes drop.

And thanks as always to our producers, Ashley Woods, Rachel Annevelink, and Jaron Drake, for their hard work in making this episode a reality.

Commonwealth v. Greer Aug 06, 2025

Show notes

Send us Fan Mail

Host Corrie Woods interviews attorney Brandy Grace Hoke to discuss Commonwealth v. Greer, which clarified when and how petitioners under the Post-Conviction Relief Act must seek and obtain new counsel to raise, and raise, claims of ineffective assistance of earlier postconviction counsel, on penalty of waiver. The case is required reading for anyone who practices in the postconviction space.

Show Notes:

Greer builds on the Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Bradley, which held that petitioners can raise claims of ineffective assistance of prior postconviction counsel for the first time on appeal. In 2022, Corrie and Attorney Michael Wiseman discussed Bradley in an earlier episode.
You can find the Court's opinion and Justice Donohue's concurring and dissenting opinion on SCOPABlog's June 2024 Docket Review.

Read more about Greer and all of the Court's cases on SCOPAblog.

And thanks as always to our producers, Ashley Woods, Rachel Annevelink, and Jaron Drake, for their hard work in making this episode a reality.

Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Department of Human Services Jun 18, 2025

Show notes

Send us Fan Mail

Host Corrie Woods interviews attorney, professor, and Executive Director of the Women's Law Project Susan Frietsche to discuss Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Department of Human Services, which, among many constitutional holdings, overruled an earlier determination that a ban on abortion funding for Medicaid recipients did not violate Pennsylvania constitutional rights and set the stage for a recognition of reproductive rights as fundamental rights under the Commonwealth's charter.

Show Notes:

You can find Justice Christine Donohue's excellent, 219-page majority opinion, Justice David Wecht's 71-page concurring opinion, and all of the other Justices' opinions on SCOPABlog's January 2024 Docket Review.
You can learn more about where the case has gone at the Women's Law Project's website.
You can learn more about and support the Women's Law Project at its website.

Read more about Allegheny Reproductive Health Ctr. and all of SCOPA's cases on SCOPAblog.

And thanks as always to our producers, Ashley Woods and Jaron Drake, for their hard work in making this episode a reality.

Commonwealth v. Bradley Oct 13, 2022

Show notes

Send us Fan Mail

Host Corrie Woods interviews fellow appellate attorney Michael Wiseman of Wiseman & Schwartz to discuss Commonwealth v. Bradley, holding that petitioners pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act may assert claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel at the earliest available opportunity, including on direct appeal.
Show Notes:

Read more about Bradley and all of SCOPA's cases on SCOPAblog.

2021 Year in Review Jan 18, 2022

Show notes

Send us Fan Mail

In this Season 1 finale episode, fellow appellate attorney and former judicial clerk Jill Lipman Beck of Blank Rome joins host Corrie Woods to discuss the most impactful Supreme Court of Pennsylvania cases and issues of 2021.

In Re: Amazon.com, Inc., Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards Act and Wage and Hour Litigation Nov 15, 2021

Show notes

Send us Fan Mail

Host Corrie Woods interviews fellow appellate attorney Pete Winebrake of Winebrake & Santillo to discuss In Re: Amazon.com, Inc., Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards Act and Wage and Hour Litigation (In Re: Amazon) in which SCOPA held that an employee's time spent on an employer's premises awaiting mandatory security screening constitutes time "worked" for purposes of Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act, and that the maxim de minimum non curat lex, or, the law does not care for trivialities, does not apply to time worked for purposes of that Act.
Show Notes: