Case law

Commonwealth, Aplt v. Williams, T.

629 Pa. 533 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2014

However, Bagley supports neither appellant’s “defense effects” root rule, nor his testimonial immunity extension of the rule. … Supreme Court would adopt a Brady materiality extension ... which would immunize a defendant against the effects of his own trial testimony, much less his own false trial testimony.

Rockwell v. Stone

404 Pa. 561 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1961

The record presents facts which clearly place Dr. Stone within McConnell. 3 Under the instant record, the jury could well have found both that Dr. … The Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, 5 Section 2 provides “A record of an act, condition or event shall, in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity

Commonwealth v. Abington Memorial Hospital

478 Pa. 514 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1978

Nevertheless, the legislature left it to the PHEAA to determine which institutions would qualify for assistance *527 under the statutory definition. … The purposes of the Institutional Assistance Grants Act (IAGA) have been clearly stated by the Legislature.

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.

Leonard v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.

565 Pa. 101 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2001

. § 25- *111 2(a) (pursuant to Pennsylvania law, “[a]ll establishments shall be so constructed, equipped, arranged, operated, and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection for the life, limb, health, safety … In my view, Kiewit/Perini and High Steel clearly had control over Cornell’s work as a result of their respective contracts, in which they both undertook the obligation to “[kjeep direct control of the contract and see that

League of Women Voters of PA v. Cmwlth

178 A.3d 737 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2018

In answering the question of how elections must ]oe made equal, we stated: “Clearly by laws which shall arrange all the-qualified electors into 'suitable districts, and make their votes equally potent in the election; so … Clause as providing, anything more' than immunity from suit, in certain circumstances, for individual members of the General Assembly. See, e.g., Sweeney v. Tucker, 473 Pa. 493 , 375 A.2d 698 (1977).

Butcher v. Rice

397 Pa. 158 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1959

That is clearly the duty of the City. … Green, Governor of Illinois, 335 U.S. 281 , is clearly inapposite.

Commonwealth v. Bomar

573 Pa. 426 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2003

“Waiver can be clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated.” Id. … There is no constitutional requirement that each prospective juror be life qualified. Id. at 543 .

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.

Commonwealth v. Jones

452 Pa. 299 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 1973

When a criminal defendant raises such a fundamental issue, he should at least be allowed to clearly state his grounds for challenge on the record, and if his grounds have any factual semblance of validity he should be given … In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors

Malanchuk, I., Aplt. v. Sivchuk, I.

635 Pa. 488 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 2016

For these reasons, and in light of the employer-immunity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, see 77 P.S. § 481, controversies arose concerning whether Appellant was performing as an employee or an independent contractor … Along these lines, it would be helpful if common pleas courts wishing to implement consolidation encompassing all pretrial proceedings would say so clearly (albeit that, in light of Kincy and Azinger , such order would not

Commonwealth v. Boden

399 Pa. 298 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1960

The evidence is clearly and unquestionably sufficient in law to justify a verdict of first degree murder. … Nasuti, 385 Pa. 436 , 123 A. 2d 435 , this Court sustained the testimony of two qualified experts that the fire was of incendiary origin. Speaking through Mr.

Schreiber v. Republic Intermodal Corp.

473 Pa. 614 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1977

of law may qualify for nonretrospective application. … In arguing that Jonnet established a new principle of law, appellants rely on Lebowitz v.

Riddle v. County of Bedford

7 Serg. & Rawle 386 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1821

The concluding section of the Act establishing a fee bill, is free from all obscurity. “ It shall be lawful for any person to ' refuse payment to any officer, who will not make out a bill of particulars, as prescribed by … On non assumpsit it was insisted on,that-the plaintiff had forfeited-his office, by not qualifying himself according to law.

Commonwealth v. Oreszak

328 Pa. 65 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1937

He then, after the entire joint statement was read to him, adopted the entire statement as explained and qualified by him as his own. … The elements of murder in the first degree were clearly established by the witnesses for the Commonwealth. Judgment is affirmed, and record remitted for purpose of execution of sentence.

Haverford Township Election

282 Pa. 504 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1925

In the answer filed, on *507 behalf of .Deaves, it was averred generally that the signers of the petition were not duly qualified, but no specification of the persons alleged to be improperly joined appeared, nor was it stated … But evidence was not of such a character as to establish that error was committed in including it in the computation made.

Halsband v. UNION NAT. BK. OF PITTSBURGH

318 Pa. Super. 597 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 1983

Clearly, where responsibility is shared by two or more parties, the plaintiff may sue all of them jointly, but is not compelled to do so. … Of course, this evidence did not establish the exact cause of the accident—indeed, if it had, no res ipsa instruction would have been necessary.

Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission

614 Pa. 364 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2012

(emphasis added)). 1 This acknowledgement, irrespective of any qualifying language, highlights the fallacy that the current plan is contrary to law. … established in our decisional law, derives from federal deci-sional law....”), our case law states otherwise.

Zaccagnini v. Vandergrift Borough

395 Pa. 285 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1959

L. 1955, 53 P.S. §19092-108), clearly saved the jobs of the two policemen involved. … The borough did not and could not agree to make any appointments which transgressed established accepted legal requirements. The decree of the court below is affirmed, each party paying his or its own costs.

Board of Revision of Taxes, City of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia

607 Pa. 104 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 2010

By comparison, the City’s interpretation and construction of Section 13132(c) is that the qualifier comprises the entirety of the BRT’s function. But if that were so, the qualifier would be entirely superfluous. … (v) Establish standards for recommending tax exemption for properties. (vi) Establish procedures for changing values on an administrative basis (for example, in the event of catastrophic loss or errors in data).