Case law

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Commonwealth

587 Pa. 347 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 2006

Therefore, the Commission argues that even if the Act could be construed as a pilot program, that fact would not render it immune from a valid Article III, Section 32 challenge. … The per se unconstitutionally standard is solidly rooted in our case law and was clearly set forth as a specific, albeit alternate, holding in Hickok I.

Commonwealth v. Farquharson

467 Pa. 50 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1976

The record clearly established that the testimony of that witness was so contradictory as to render it incapable of reasonable reconciliation and therefore the court properly refused to allow a verdict of guilt to stand. … We are also not persuaded that this testimony can qualify as a declaration of present sense impression.

In re Anonymous No. 16 D.B. 82

33 Pa. D. & C.3d 563 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1984

This is sufficient to establish a violation of the disciplinary rules. See In Re: Anonymous Nos. 41 D.B. 79 and 42 D.B. 79, 21 D. & C.3d 294 (1981). III. … While such cooperation is laudable, it also involves an element of self-interest in lessening their respective criminal exposures, even where testimony is given without formal immunity.

Boring v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

435 Pa. 513 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1969

Clearly the method employed by the Condemnees’ experts was at variance with the proper method of capitalizing rental income. … Nor did the offer indicate that the records would qualify for admission under the Business Records Act.

Elite v. Premier Apl of: Premier Comp & Brick St.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2024

petitioned for en banc review.23 The en banc court affirmed the trial court, offering essentially three rationales for its decision24 First, the court noted that “Elite Care’s three common-law causes of action clearly … But that is not evidence that the legislature intended for trial courts to hear negligence suits against employers; it is the result of employers being immune from employee negligence suits.

Zawada v. Pennsylvania System Board of Adjustment

392 Pa. 207 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1958

The following facts were clearly established of record: (1) after the forfeiture of the lodge charters the appellee appointed a replacement for Zawada and notified him of this fact; (2) Zawada then refused to turn his files … These facts make it readily apparent that the appellant has established no right to recover for Zawad'a’s services on the basis of a quantum meruit.

Commonwealth v. Ellis

354 Pa. Super. 11 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1986

A review *16 of the facts surrounding appellant’s arrest, as clearly testified to by three police officers who were on the scene, show that appellant’s first issue is devoid of any arguable merit. … Thus, the court deemed the witness qualified to testify as to the comparison of appellant’s sneaker prints to those found at the crime scene.

Commonwealth v. Carluccetti

369 Pa. 190 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1952

What the learned jurist thus clearly recognized was the distinct difference between supporting a legally established mental norm with testimony that nothing out of the ordinary was observed in the subject’s conduct and attempting … Having been voluntarily given by the defendant, they were clearly admissible.

Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. Finkel

428 Pa. 11 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1967

This itself clearly indicates that the clients were to be personally liable for the fees and that the note was given as security for the personal debt. … —does not qualify. No doubt Attorney Resnick is entitled to be paid for his services.

Roverano, W., Aplt. v. John Crane, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2020

4 In Tincher, we established at length that the plaintiff may seek to establish strict liability on the “consumer expectations” and/or “risk-utility” theory. … But in providing that strict liability would apply to defendants severally rather than jointly, the General Assembly neither said nor clearly implied that it intended to displace per capita apportionment in strict liability

YOUNG v. Kaye

443 Pa. 335 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1971

Thus, Traner Associates can establish clear title to the Kinzua stock free of Young’s adverse claim only if it qualifies as a “bona fide purchaser.” … Traner Associates clearly purchased the Kinzua stock for value and took delivery of the same.

Key Realty Co. Zoning Case

408 Pa. 98 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1962

The historical origin and development of our Country, our Birthright and Heritage of Freedom and the (so-called) inalienable fundamental rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by our Constitution are too often forgotten … When this seemingly absolute protection is found *116 to be qualified by tbe police power, tbe natural tendency of human nature is to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappears.

Clyde's Estate

329 Pa. 552 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1938

Appellee qualified as executor and assumed the trust. … The advantage to testator’s estate, and the benefit to his widow, of avoiding a forced sale of the real estate at the suit of a creditor is too obvious to require extended comment; clearly the execution and delivery of a

Freeze v. Donegal Mutual Insurance

301 Pa. Super. 344 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 1982

She clearly qualified as a “Survivor” under the No-Fault Act. In the case at bar the appellant is the Estate of the decedent, and does not qualify as a “Survivor”. John G. … The Act clearly restricts recovery of work loss benefits to “survivors” as defined in the Act. The estate of the deceased victim is not included in that definition.

Commonwealth v. Tillia

359 Pa. Super. 302 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1986

The decedent’s hearsay statements clearly fall within this exception to the hearsay rule. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the statements do not establish that decedent, in fact, was driving the vehicle. … Clearly, the above testimony, including testimony by the tow truck driver who stated that decedent’s bandana was lodged on the far passenger side (N.T. 300), is more than sufficient to establish that appellant was driving

Burchfield v. M'Cauley

3 Watts 9 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1834

I take it that it would be clearly admissible evidence to go to the jury to show the date, location and extent of the survey. … . <$■ Rawle 221, it would, if it could have been produced, have been admissible evidence on the trial 1 The rule, as laid down and qualified in Miller v.

In Re Petition to Recall Reese

542 Pa. 114 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1995

Petition demanding the recall of any elective municipal officer shall be signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least forty-five percent (45%) of the number of total votes cast for the office of mayor in the most … First, all legislative enactments are presumed to be constitutional, see Addison’s Case, 385 Pa. 48 , 122 A.2d 272 (1956), and this presumption can be rebutted only if the legislation clearly, palpably, and plainly violates

Commonwealth v. Kunish

529 Pa. 206 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 1992

As is quite evident from the judge’s statements, he clearly intended to impose the same sentence that he had originally imposed in 1984. He was mistaken, however, concerning the term of the 1984 sentence. … “The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner.” Bozza v.

Commonwealth v. Busanet

572 Pa. 535 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2002

Herrera-Weaver served as a court interpreter without being sworn in and qualified on the record. … Thus, the charge, when viewed in its entirety, clearly instructed the jury that any mitigating factor found by one juror must be weighed against aggravating factors unanimously found by all the jurors.

Catania v. COM., STATE EMP. RETIREMENT

498 Pa. 684 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1982

necessary for the establishment and operation of a proper retirement system. … The “term of office” to be served by judges is established by Pa.Const. art.