Case law

Commonwealth v. Story

497 Pa. 273 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1981

Trouble was, the “California-death qualified” jury (i.e., a jury in a capital case qualified under the appropriate California statute) did not contain jurors chosen *291 from the latter category as the California statute … The United States Supreme Court has, of course, clearly established that “the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution.” Gregg v.

SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth

628 Pa. 573 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2014

The Centers employed, inter alia, approximately sixty-one nurse consultants, who have expertise in a variety of specialized public health fields involving tuberculosis, communicable diseases, immunizations, HIV, family health … Respectfully, this interpretation is not persuasive because it ignores that the Legislature qualified "health centers" by the term "those."

Enfield v. Stout

400 Pa. 6 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1960

The testimony of the two Stouts, together with that of a passerby, establishes that the lights of the truck were on at the time in question. … This requires that the driver operate his automobile at such a rate of speed and in such a manner that he can always stop it within the distance that he can clearly see: Metro v.

Anderson v. Murdoch Storage & Transfer Co.

371 Pa. 212 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 1952

Regardless of the language employed by the bailee, he may not avoid indemnifying the bailor for losses occasioned by his own negligence, because it would be contrary to public policy for anyone to enter into an agreement for immunization … Accepting every fact and inference therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we are *221 required to do in considering a nonsuit, the evidence clearly indicates that the defendants failed to measure up to

Baeder, Adamson Co. v. F. W. Tunnell Co., Inc.

285 Pa. 356 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1926

A new theory is here evolved for establishing the byproduct as a credit. It is, that the plain and unambiguous meaning of the contract requires it to be done. … The contest in the court below was over the cost of manufacture, of which cost stock was an integral part, being clearly included in “all charges entering into the manufacture of glue.”

Western Pennsylvania National Bank v. Myers

407 Pa. 298 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 1962

Chief Justice Bell, Did the Department of BanMng clearly abuse its discretion in approving the Articles of Incorporation for Commercial Bank & Trust Company of Pittsburgh? … It cannot be denied that the establishment of the new bank will have some adverse effect upon the banks with which it will compete.

Peters v. Davis

426 Pa. 231 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1967

Both lots were subject to certain building restrictions established in 1950 by the then owners of the land and entitled “Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions of Lake Cliff Park Addition Subdivision.” 1 This … Clearly it would be ‘only by conjecture and not by any accurate standard’ that a jury could measure the damages caused to the plaintiff. [citing an authority].” Judge (later Chief Justice) Kephart in Dodson v.

Commonwealth v. Morrison

193 Pa. 613 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1899

The corpus delicti and the fact, that the mortal wound— which speedily caused the-death of Harry Dougherty—was inflicted by the' prisoner, were both so clearly and conclusively established by the evidence that there could … If all of this is not clearly and satisfactorily shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should acquit. “6.

Commonwealth v. Fanelli

377 Pa. Super. 555 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1988

Time in no way being of the essence of the offense, there being no claim or indication that the defendant was in anyway misled or prejudiced ... and it clearly appearing that the offense took place in the period of the statute … The fact that the victim cannot set a date for the crime should not be fatal to the State’s case, thus making the defendant virtually immune from prosecution. State v. D.B.S., 700 P.2d 630, 634 (Mont. 1985).

In Re Erie Golf Course

605 Pa. 484 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2010

Likewise, the court indicated that the City failed to establish impracticability of the public-park use. … municipality accepts these gifts or other transfers under terms and conditions, that the municipality will remain true to its agreement.”), as well as the public at large, id. at 23-24 ("[AJpplying the Act to properties clearly

Crawford Central School District v. Commonwealth

585 Pa. 131 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2005

The contractors therefore do not qualify for the exemption under § 7204(12), and the District cannot prevail under this section. The District argues Commonwealth v. … The statutory language clearly excuses only tax on building machinery and equipment, and its transfer or use by the contractor.

Snyder Estate

368 Pa. 393 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1951

The father clearly and repeatedly testified that the loans or notes were never paid. … In proceedings to distribute an estate, the orphans’ court has jurisdiction to inquire into, and by custom and experience is exceptionally well qualified to determine claims of creditors, legatees, devisees and next of kin

Commonwealth v. Wallace, J., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2023

App. 2010) (holding that “GPS data is clearly hearsay because it purports to show [an offender’s] locations … and it is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., to prove that [the offender] was in the locations … Likewise, in Ruise, supra, the court cited to its hearsay rule and determined that the GPS data was “clearly hearsay” because it purported to show Ruise’s locations on a certain date, and was “being offered for the truth

Welsh v. Kerr Coal Co.

233 Pa. 341 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 1912

The competency of the witness to testify in this regard was clearly established, not simply by long experience in connection with coal .operations, but by scientific attainments as well. … The weight of his testimony, and that of others, with less experience perhaps, but sufficient to qualify them as experts, the correctness of their conclusions, with the reasons on which they rested, were matters wholly for

Commonwealth v. DeHart

512 Pa. 235 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1986

The Pennsylvania statute clearly permits consideration of such evidence. … Appellant’s related argument that both a non-death-qualified jury for the trial phase and a death-qualified-jury for the sentencing phase should have been selected therefore falls. 10 .

Commonwealth v. Allen

501 Pa. 525 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1983

“Moreover, the privilege extends not only to the disclosure of facts which would in themselves establish guilt, but also to any fact which might constitute an essential link in a chain of evidence by which guilt can be established … Such a situation is' clearly distinguishable from one where the action of a prosecutor or judge “.. . effectively dr[i]ve[s] [the] witness off the stand...” Webb v.

Grantham v. Goetz

401 Pa. 349 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1960

The proof utterly failed to establish this fact. Dr. … The error, if any, was clearly harmless. Counsel for appellant also complain that the court erred in refusing to admit certain proposed exhibits into the evidence for all purposes.

Boudwin v. Yellow Cab Co.

410 Pa. 31 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1963

A tortfeasor may not ride to immunity from his wrong on the back of workmen’s compensation paid by someone else. His disability is direct and may not be transferred. … In that very case the Court’s opinion referred to several decisions of this Court which clearly disapprove of the introduction of evidence on collateral benefits received by the plaintiff.

Pa. Rest. & Lodging Ass'n v. City of Pittsburgh

211 A.3d 810 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2019

We are asked to consider whether these ordinances run afoul of the qualified statutory preclusion of local regulations that burden business. … While the PSDA certainly burdens Pittsburgh employers, it clearly falls within the ambit of the City's express statutory authority to legislate in furtherance of disease control and prevention.

Weiner v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

310 Pa. 415 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1933

It was clearly the duty of the motorman, when he saw the plaintiff in a position where a twenty-inch backward *420 movement by Mm would have brought him to the zone of danger, to take care not to injure the plaintiff. … Plaintiff here did not succeed in establishing a prima facie case and therefore there was nothing requiring submission to the jury.