Case law

Mueller v. Monongahela Fire Clay Co.

183 Pa. 450 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1898

They had established a fire brick manufactory and were carrying it on. … Clearly, if this is to continue, in three or four years more, the corporation will be insolvent.

Bible v. COM., DEPT. OF LABOR AND IND.

548 Pa. 247 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1997

Pa.Cmwlth. 613 , 544 A.2d 514, 517-18 (1988) as follows: It is, of course, well settled that there is a presumption against a statute having retroactive effect and that such construction will not be embraced unless it is clearly … In Gibson , we held that the sovereign immunity statute passed in 1978 could not be retroactively applied to causes of action that had accrued following our overruling of common law sovereign immunity in Mayle v.

Commonwealth v. Truitt

369 Pa. 72 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1951

are based upon (1) the admission of allegedly prejudicial evidence concerning communistic connections and activities of Truitt and Smith; (2) the failure of the trial judge to charge on Truitt’s constitutional right of immunity … However, in essential features, the *77 charges in the indictments were amply and sufficiently established.

Ivy Hill Cong. of Jehovah Witnesses, Aplt. v. DHS

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2024

would address whether [Appellant’s] elders are ‘clergymen’ such that they are immune from” penalties for non-reporting. Ivy Hill II, 2022 WL 1464353, at *4. … determined that granting the requested declaratory relief would not terminate the controversy because DHS does not enforce the CPSL, and “declaratory relief binding DHS to an interpretation that [Appellant’s] elders qualify

Albert v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n

350 Pa. 268 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 1944

The testimony established that the plaintiff was afflicted with tuberculosis and required regular visits by a physician who specialized in diseases of the chest. … Clearly there was no compliance with the condition of the policy that the insured be continuously “confined to the house and disabled”.

Pavlicic v. Vogtsberger

390 Pa. 502 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1957

George qualified. He was 75. Sara Jane was 26. … It could never be supposed that the Act of 1935 intended to throw a cloak of immunity over a 26-year old woman who lays a snare for a 75-year old man and continues to bait him for four or five years so that she can obtain

Fleming's Estate

265 Pa. 399 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1919

Fleming (the will pur *403 porting to be holographic) were identified by bankers and others qualified to express opinions thereon. Mr. … This appears not only from the opinions of experts and of lay-witnesses familiar with his writing but clearly from a comparison of the will with specimens of his genuine penmanship; in fact the will bears no marked resemblance

Commonwealth v. Coles

265 Pa. 362 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1919

Others of the company fired shots, one taking effect in the shoulder of an employee of the establishment. All four were armed with pistols which they exhibited. … As will readily be observed the qualifying, and to that extent the governing, word in the rule as stated by Mr. Justice Agnew in the case cited, is the word “unconnected.”

Trizechahn Gateway LLC v. Titus

601 Pa. 637 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2009

Clearly, any person entering into a contract — assuming he has read it (as Trizechahn’s uncontested evidence showed) — has some idea of what he believes he is agreeing to. … The “reasonably” qualifier is important: there is no ambiguity if one of the two proffered meanings is unreasonable. See Murphy v. Duquesne Univ.

Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC v. Commonwealth, Department of Banking

607 Pa. 432 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2010

Substantively, the Commonwealth Court rejected Cash America’s argument that Section 3.A of the CDCA clearly and unambiguously excluded from its purview an out-of-state lender with no personnel or office in Pennsylvania. … The Department very clearly expressed that the Notice articulated its interpretation of the law. See Notice, 38 Pa.

Pittsburgh Steel Co. v. Patterson-Emerson-Comstock, Inc.

404 Pa. 53 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1961

No inference from words of general import can establish it. … The facts of the Tidewater case are clearly distinguishable from the material facts in the instant case.

Ortiz v. Ra-El Development Corp.

365 Pa. Super. 48 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1987

In the instant case, routine construction work on a fourteen-foot high scaffold clearly involves no special danger or peculiar risk. … Arnko had previously moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was immune from tort action as a statutory employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 77, §§ 21, 52 (Purdon 1982).

Laffey v. Court of Common Pleas

503 Pa. 103 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1983

an integrated bar in this Commonwealth, thereby eliminating the power of local bars to determine or *107 qualify their membership. … bar of all courts of this Commonwealth, without further act or oath, establishing in reality one bar throughout Pennsylvania.

Gloninger v. Pittsb. & C. R.

139 Pa. 13 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1891

Hence we have the question clearly cut, whether its charter is affected by either the constitutional provision or the act of assembly referred to. … It has kept the Pittsburgh & Connells- *41 ville company alive, atad constantly increasing in business and capacity, until it is now a firmly-established and self-sustaining company of great and growing importance in the

In Re Estate of Mathay

463 Pa. 486 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1975

Just as clearly, item five of the will is a residuary clause, and appellants’ devise is within that clause. … We believe the present contested payments made in lieu of “support rights” do not qualify for federal deduction treatment.

Commonwealth v. Sanchez

614 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2011

Therefore, the exhibits were relevant and not clearly inflammatory. … Supreme Court clearly establishes that it is unconstitutional.”). .

In re Carney

621 Pa. 476 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2013

The Board points out that the plain language of Rule 2A clearly requires an MDJ to “respect and comply with the law.” … Reading MDJ Rule 2A in a manner that insulates conduct that violates the law, on grounds that the conduct does not involve the judicial decision-making process, would make MDJs immune from separate discipline for illegal

Vann v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

508 Pa. 139 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1985

We observe that the Unemployment Compensation Law even limits the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as a basis for refusing to testify before a tribunal by extending a grant of immunity … Such is clearly not sufficient to sustain the burden of showing that the employer’s interests had been disregarded or instructions or rules violated when the Appellee refused to immediately honor Joseph Goodman’s request.

City of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

490 Pa. 264 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 1980

This rule is closely akin to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, a doctrine abrogated by a majority of this Court as “unfair and unsuited to the times” in Mayle v. … However, the claimant in Wyoming Sand and Stone, supra, was not able to establish a clear right to the principal fund in question.

Cochrane v. Szpakowski

355 Pa. 357 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1946

‘The general rule is not to entertain jurisdiction to decree a specific performance respecting goods, chattels, stocks, dioses in action and other things of a merely personal nature; but the rule is qualified, and is limited … The admission of the letter into evidence was clearly within the discretion of the chancellor.