Case law

Wheeden v. Camden & Amboy Railroad

1 Grant 420 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1856

The company, at the time of appearing, filed a petition, setting forth that they were a corporation solely created and established by laws of the State of New Jersey, and having their chief place of business within the State … Take, for instance, that provision of the 4th article, “that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.”

Keefer v. Byers

398 Pa. 447 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1960

The admission of the son’s testimony for the purpose of re-establishing the plaintiff’s credit as a witness to the accident was a sound exercise of the trial judge’s discretion. … The son’s testimony qualified as a consonant statement which, although hearsay and not proof of the substantive matter it contained, was admissible for the purpose of rehabilitating the credibility of the plaintiff whose

Commonwealth v. Vogel

468 Pa. 438 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1976

. *444 Additionally, the defense presented the expert testimony of three highly qualified psychiatrists. Two of the doctors’ professional contact with appellant began as early as August of 1962. … Clearly, a conviction will only be sustained where the Commonwealth has carried its burden of proving each essential element of the crime charged “beyond a *445 reasonable doubt.” See Commonwealth v.

In re Estate of Easterday

209 A.3d 331 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2019

The General Assembly included no language in section 3323(g)(2) to signal an end to the necessity of compliance with Rule 1920.42(b)(2), clearly reflecting the General Assembly's intent that for purposes of application of … Rather, whether a state law "relates to" a qualified employee benefit plan depends upon whether the state law impinges upon the objectives of ERISA, as well as its effect, if any, on ERISA-qualified plans.

Duffy v. Insurance Co.

8 Watts & Serg. 413 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1844

Delaval, (2 Vez., Sen., 663, 669); from which it appears that this doctrine is settled and clearly established; and likewise recognised as being so by Mr Justice Stoky in his Equity Jurisprudence, pl. 1373. … The right to the fee-simple in the estate may well be regarded as the separate estate of the wife in a limited or qualified point of view; for without her consent and act it could not be disposed of or even encumbered by

Allegheny Reprod. Health v. PA DHS

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2024

These fundamental rights are the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities.”) … REV. 847, 849 (1999) (“Historically, the line between the home as private and the rest of civil and political society as public was defined by social norms as well as law, and that line was clearly gendered.

Escheat of $92,800

361 Pa. 51 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1948

It is, of course, the duty of a petitioner for escheat “clearly to aver a case within some act or acts of assembly”: Commonwealth ex rel. v. Pennsylvania Co., 339 Pa. 513, 516 , 15 A. 2d 280 . … Even had the Liebermans not disclaimed any right to the money as the finders, the question of law as to whether the facts established a finder’s right in them to qualified ownership of the property would still be a matter

Wieman v. Anderson

42 Pa. 311 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1862

What broadly distinguishes that case from the present is, that here the wife’s separate estate in the goods traded with is clearly established. Walker v. Reamy, 12 Casey 410, was, like Raybold v. … We have no reason to qualify or doubt any of them.

C & M Developers, Inc. v. Bedminster Township Zoning Hearing Board

573 Pa. 2 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2002

agricultural uses and not develop or subdivide sixty percent of *10 the tract that qualifies as prime farmland and fifty percent of the tract that qualifies as farmland of statewide importance and/or farmland of local importance … Clearly, the set aside restrictions in the Ordinance are related to the Township’s interest in preserving its agricultural lands as they (1) are directly based on the amount of soils recognized by the federal, state, and

Commonwealth v. Vogel

440 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1970

The defense offered the testimony of three eminently well-qualified psychiatrists to establish Vogel’s legal insanity. … I realize that our case law has placed upon the defendant the burden of establishing his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Scatena

332 Pa. Super. 415 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1984

The drivers who testified did so under a grant of immunity from prosecution. The Syracuse dispatcher testified following a plea of guilty to a charge of conspiracy to create a public nuisance. … We are of the view, however, that the statute does not clearly man *441 date that a fine be imposed.

City of Harrisburg v. Segelbaum

151 Pa. 172 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1892

Such a case is clearly within the principle of assessing the cost on the lots lying upon it. . . . … Philadelphia, has been adhered to ever since. ' It was not our intention either to depart from or to qualify it in Williamsport v. Beck, or in any other ease; nor, are we convinced that we have done so.

Brown's Estate

289 Pa. 101 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 1927

Next, it is plain that the phrase “subject......to” is here employed, as it is usually employed, to qualify something substantial already created, — in this instance, to qualify the estates in remainder previously given by … Clearly, in the 13th paragraph, testatrix means by “shall not be disposed of,” that the properties in question shall not be sold, alienated, or parted with; and in the 11th paragraph, she uses the word “disposition” in the

Commonwealth v. Godsey

342 Pa. Super. 24 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1985

In our system of justice, the requirement that a persons guilt be established in accordance with due process and beyond a reasonable doubt is inviolable. … An A.R.D. drunk driving discharge did not count as a first offense, but only a subsequent conviction so qualified because of the clear intent of the A.R.D. program.

Berkley v. Maurer

34 Pa. Super. 363 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1907

Upon the trial of the issue in the common pleas the burden of establishing that the defendant had signed the note was on the plaintiff. … The witnesses whose competency is attacked in several of these assignments did not attempt to qualify as expert witnesses.

Commonwealth v. Williams

557 Pa. 207 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1999

Failure to life qualify the jury Williams’ fifth ground for relief is his claim that the trial court improperly permitted the jury to be “death-qualified” by permitting voir dire to exclude those jurors who were opposed to … There, he clearly and accurately described the actual disposition as a manslaughter conviction.

University of Pittsburgh Tax Exemption Case

407 Pa. 416 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 1962

Thus, the law proclaims that not everyone in the vicinity of institutions enjoying a rain bath of tax immunity is entitled to that same immunity merely because he stands close enough to feel the splash and the coolness of … In the case of Ogontz School Tax Exemption, 361 Pa. 284 , we said: “A claimant for exemption must bring himself clearly within the exempting statute.”

Templeton Appeal

399 Pa. 10 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1960

But in any event, the Borough Code, complete as it may be, cannot immunize the municipality from liability arising under other well-established rules of law. … “Since municipalities are not immune against estoppels, the only question here is whether or not this record supports the estoppel invoked. . . .

Commonwealth v. Swartz

335 Pa. Super. 457 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1984

The uncontested and unimpeached evidence established the following facts. Appellant walked into a branch office of York Bank and Trust. He was wearing reflective sun glasses. … A person who could not form an “intent to deprive” would probably qualify for the complete insanity defense and would have no need for the diminished capacity doctrine.

Scranton Board of Zoning Appeals v. Silas

393 Pa. 10 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1958

The record clearly demonstrates that the board abused its discretion in awarding the certificate of use. … The commercial enterprise operated by Textiles, Inc. does not remotely qualify under the provisions of the zoning ordinance as quoted.