Case law

In Re Estate of Porter

463 Pa. 411 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1975

Urquhart’s Estate, supra; Nagle’s Estate, 418 Pa. 170 , 210 A.2d 262 (1965). 6 Here, three well-qualified experts testified that appellant is competent, and their testimony was uncontradicted. … That concern is clearly not a sufficient basis for determining that, notwithstanding the uncontradicted testimony of the experts, appellant had failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is competent

Montgomery v. Dennison

363 Pa. 255 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1949

“Now if the defendant establishes his privilege, then there are different ways within the law that a privilege can be abused. … If he establishes this defense, it is a complete bar to recovery.

Pfoutz v. Steel

2 Watts 409 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1834

The defendant then attempted to establish a pre-emption right to the land by showing that in 1816 a John S. … In the case then at bar it being clearly established by the defendant’s own witnesses, and indeed not gainsaid by himself, that for the space of nearly ten'years before, and immediately preceding the time that the plaintiff

Drexel v. Man

2 Pa. 271 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1845

Osborn, and established fully by all the preceding cases and authorities on the subject. … From the foregoing doctrine, which appears to be established by a weight of authority that cannot be controverted or overturned, the court was right in the qualified admission of the defendant’s evidence, and in not admitting

Foy's Election

228 Pa. 14 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1910

This view defeats Foy and gives the office to a man who did not com *18 mand a majority of the qualified voters of the district. … L. 118; and thereunder, when the contestant fails to establish his right to the office in question, the petitioners must pay the costs: Thirty-eighth Ward Election, 35 Pa. Superior Ct. 256 .

Lastooka v. Aetna Insurance

380 Pa. Super. 408 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1988

However, this event would literally have qualified the second enumerated class of covered individuals, listed above, to read “anyone else occupying any auto”. … Hence, the result reached below, we believe, is in keeping with the principles established in Miller as well as in Contrisciane .

COM. EX REL. JUD. CONDUCT BD. v. Griffin

918 A.2d 87 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2007

Spykerman, 421 A.2d at 649 . see also In re One Hundred or More Qualified Electors of Clairton, 546 Pa. 126 , 683 A.2d 283, 286-87 (1996) (finding qualified electors lacked standing to bring an action in quo warranto for … Petitioner, as noted supra, is a constitutionally-created entity of clearly delineated and limited authority.

Harris v. State Board of Optometrical Examiners

287 Pa. 531 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1926

As the record discloses this conviction, .it would conclude the question here raised, unless the rule of conduct prescribed by the legislature and violated was clearly in derogation of rights secured by the 11th Amendment … This does not follow, as one learned in that profession is better qualified to treat the eye and determine to a degree from an inspection of it what would or would not be necessary in glasses or medicine than one having an

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Smith v. Ashe

364 Pa. 93 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1950

Drayton 3 or prepare or present the defense, either in establishing insanity as a complete defense or in mitigation of the penalty.’ … William Drayton, Jr., a qualified psychiatrist, to examine Smith and to report to the court as to Smith’s mental condition (as hereinbefore stated). 4. Dr.

Gardner v. Consolidated Rail Corp. SEPTA

524 Pa. 445 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1990

A municipality is under no obligation to establish playgrounds. … Clearly, however, once it does so, it has an obligation to ensure that the playgrounds are not located in a place that presents a hazard to those using the playground.

American Housing Trust, III v. Jones

548 Pa. 311 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1997

These activities clearly fall squarely within those excluded by § 4122(a)(7) and (a)(8). Brief For Appellant at p. 7 (emphasis added). … Judge Cirillo dissenting, noted that he would reverse and remand for a determination of the merits of the case because the facts did not clearly support the dismissal of the case. 6 .

Smalley v. ZONING HEARING BD. OF MIDDLETOWN

575 Pa. 85 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2003

In the parts relevant here, the amended Ordinance: (1) established a requirement of “a minimum lot area of one (1) acre” to conduct a “professional office” at a residential location, Ord. § 2307B (1) (b) (ii); and (2) established … The trial court clearly erred in asserting its own alternative basis upon which to affirm the denial of appellant’s request for a certificate of nonconforming use.

Williams v. Finlaw, Mueller & Co.

292 Pa. 244 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1927

In other jurisdictions, the rule has been established that an account must be so involved that the court would be incompetent to examine it with necessary accuracy. … The principle of these authorities clearly governs the case at bar. Plaintiff’s compensation depended upon the total net sales made by defendant company within his districts.

Commonwealth v. Bavusa

574 Pa. 620 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2003

to establish beyond a reasonable doubt. … the amendment established an affirmative defense or sentencing factors. .

Smith v. Smith

364 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1950

In view of that evidence it is impossible to conceive; of what more defendant could have done to establish himself as a Florida domiciliary. He has severed all Pennsylvania ties and established himself anew in Florida. … His written statements on official documents, his oral declarations and his acts all clearly show that his Florida residence is his legal domicile.

Commonwealth v. Yacoubian

339 Pa. Super. 413 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1985

Persons who had participated in such burglaries and who testified under grants of immunity or pursuant to plea bargains testified that the stolen silver and other goods had been delivered to appellant who sold the same in … Contrary to appellant’s contention, moreover, the reliability of Mullen and Jordon, who had been eyewitnesses to the events narrated to the police and who had made declarations against penal interest, was *424 clearly established

Everhart's Appeal

106 Pa. 349 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1884

This answer was clearly evasive, as it did not deny the fact of the contract, nor its equitable obligation, but questioned only its legal effect. … By the 53d equity rule of this court it is provided that after replication or setting down of a cause for hearing an answer shall not be amended in any material matters, as by adding new facts or defences, or qualifying or

Commonwealth v. Neiman

624 Pa. 53 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2013

— of the presence of a registered sexually violent predator; 15 (10) conferred- immunity on unit owners’ associations of a common interest community for good faith distribution of information obtained from the database; … Thus, a statute will not be found unconstitutional “unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution.” Id.

Finnerty v. Darby

391 Pa. 300 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1958

Lang’s testimony also established that plaintiff was driving substantially in excess of 25 miles per hour. … The memorandum was clearly admissible just as an unsigned or oral statement of the defendant would have been.

Commonwealth v. Cavalier

284 Pa. 311 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1925

It would be an impracticable thing to lay down a hard and fast rule as to how much experience a practicing physician must have had with insane persons to qualify him to speak as an expert. … All of the authorities state that, “When the child reaches fourteen, any special immunity or presumption of incapacity ceases, and the infant is practically an adult in the eyes of the criminal law”: *325 14 Ruling Case Law