trial court ruled at the conclusion of the Freemans’ casein-chief and therefore at least some of Sorchych’s evidence was apparently not presented or considered by the trial court, to the extent it is relevant a factual question still exists as to the previous condition of the road in 1969 and subsequently. 8 . The court further noted that the Freemans' request for contribution "is made even though [the Freemans] acknowledge that [Sorchych] never agreed to contribute despite the fact this issue was discussed by the parties." The Free-mans argue that the testimony at trial was that Sorchych did in fact agree to contribute, and therefore, the court erred in its find 2d 593, 598 (1982) (same); Meadow Run & Mountain Lake Park Ass’n v. Berkel, 409 Pa.Super. 637, 598 A.2d 1024, 1027 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Carson v. Jackson Land & Mining Co., 90 W.Va.
holding that the rules of criminal procedure should be common knowledge to lawenforcement and judicial officers who have the duty and responsibility to authorize searches holding that the statute in question served to modify prior common law and that the legislature was empowered to make such changes in the common law based on the public interest holding that repair and maintenance costs for common roads and other common areas were the responsibility of the residential users and not the homeowners association that held title to the roads holding that individual property owners holding an express easement to use roads in a privately developed residential area rather than the voluntary nonprofit association organized to raise funds to maintain the roads were obligated to contribute to the repair and maintenance of those roads holding that the statutes abrogated the common law