Case law

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.

Bergdoll v. Kane

557 Pa. 72 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1999

We stated that Article I, § 9 “clearly, emphatically and unambiguously requires a ‘face to face’ confrontation.” We drew on our observations about the nature of the confrontation clause in the case of Commonwealth v. … Appellees contended that as the ballot question was submitted to the qualified electors of the Commonwealth, no qualified elector could answer one way on part one (the face to face provision) and another way on part two (

Farrell v. Bonner

424 Pa. 301 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1967

The defendants assert that the plaintiff failed to establish negligence. … There is an appreciable difference between a floor that is waxed for cleanliness and beauty, and a floor that is so waxed it can qualify as a skating rink.

Commonwealth v. Duffey

551 Pa. 675 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1998

The record clearly shows that no attorney entered an appearance pursuant to Rule 302. … It further stated that Duffey had asked the PCCRC to assist him in obtaining qualified counsel and requested the court to appoint *685 counsel if the PCCRC could not obtain qualified counsel to represent him.

Tack's Estate

325 Pa. 545 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1937

So that we return to the authorities, by which it has been established that a tax upon . . . the privilege of taking under the statutes of wills and of descents, is a tax not upon United States bonds if they happen to compose … It thus clearly appears that even though the Act of 1919 in its title and enacting clauses designates itself as an act imposing a tax on the “transfer” of property, a closer study reveals that the tax imposed by it is not

Replogle v. COM., PA. LIQUOR CONT. BD.

514 Pa. 209 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1987

The condemnee was operating a retail liquor establishment under a valid, unrevoked and renewable liquor license in a municipality which permitted liquor sales. … Legislation will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution. American Trucking Associations v. Scheiner, 510 Pa. 430 , 509 A.2d 838 (1986); Commonwealth v.

Wexler v. Hecht

593 Pa. 118 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2007

In any event, Appellant has never asserted that she could not have obtained an expert witness qualified under the MCARE Act. … is qualified to testify as an expert witness in a lawsuit, such as this one, concerning a *989 bunionectomy.

Commonwealth v. Bartilson

85 Pa. 482 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1877

This language has been somewhat criticized, in view of which I have re-considered it carefully with a view to withdraw or qualify it if found erroneous. … It is rare that a conspiracy can be established by direct proof. As a general rule conspirators do not publish their intentions.

Kirchner's Estate

342 Pa. 241 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 1941

of the remaining estate should be given to The Home’ where his wife was kept in her last *244 years”, it should be inferred that he “intended that, there would be but one condition necessary to be fulfilled in order to qualify … my wife in every case”, describing her as being “mentally unfit to take care of herself”, and it is significant as bearing upon his intention that, knowing this, he nevertheless employed language which, in our opinion, clearly

Pottsville Referendum Case

363 Pa. 460 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1950

The Court has inherent and well established power where proper circumstances exist to entertain an appeal or petition nunc pro tunc.” … The court then makes the following statement: “The testimony taken at the hearing on the petition to be set aside clearly discloses that the County Board of Elections innocently but erroneously neglected to perform the duties

Commonwealth v. Yarris

557 Pa. 12 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1999

Evidence presented at a 1994 hearing established that slides containing biological evidence were lost or destroyed. … Accordingly, the statement is inadmissible unless it qualifies as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Commonwealth v. Fedorek

596 Pa. 475 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2008

Significant is the fact that the General Assembly did not require that this prohibited act be directed at a certain number of persons that could qualify as “the public.” … Clearly, Appellee intended “harm” by her actions: she forthrightly encouraged one person to “hurt” another. Just as clearly, Appellee intended that this harm be “substantial.”

Roop v. Greenfield

352 Pa. 232 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1945

In the instant case, it clearly appears from the facts alleged in the affidavit of defense that the testator’s estate was hopelessly insolvent. Necessarily, it had to be used first to pay creditors. … To give the presumption the conclusive effect in this case, for which the appellant contends, would be to establish arbitrarily as truth a condition contrary to fact.

Commonwealth v. Edwards

521 Pa. 134 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1989

The evidence in this case was clearly *147 sufficient to enable the jury to conclude that the appellant was not so intoxicated so as to affect his ability to form a specific intent to kill. … Appellant argues that the “death qualifying” process resulted in the court empanel-ling an unfair and prosecution-prone jury. Citing Wither-spoon v.

Pottsville Referendum Case

363 Pa. 460 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1949

The Court has inherent and well established power where proper circumstances exist to entertain an appeal or petition nunc pro tunc." … The court then makes the following statement: "The testimony taken at the hearing on the petition to be set aside clearly discloses that the County Board of Elections innocently but erroneously neglected to perform the duties

Spencer v. Colt

89 Pa. 314 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 1879

In view of the facts admitted or clearly proved at the trial this attempt to strike down and annihilate bonds amounting to $15,000, which the plaintiff thought worth depositing in a bank for safety, seems to have resulted … A preceding sentence in the opinion in that case was made meaningless by the omission in transcribing of a qualifying clause.

Commonwealth v. Mobley

399 Pa. Super. 108 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1990

The dilemma arises when, as in this case, the defendant violates probation without verdict and then attempts to withdraw the guilty plea entered to qualify for the program. … A review of Appellant’s plea colloquy, which was both extensive and detailed, clearly indicates that Appellant’s plea was voluntarily and understandingly tendered. See Commonwealth v.

Octoraro Water Co. v. Garrison

271 Pa. 421 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1921

Maryland, “lying in, along said Octoraro Creek,” as the grantor was competent to convey, then plaintiff is entitled to the relief it seeks; while on the other hand, if the expression, “lying in, along said Octoraro Creek,” qualifies … Agreeing with the chancellor who heard this case, we are satisfied the proper construction of plaintiff’s deed is that for which it contends; that the language of the grant clearly vests in plaintiff all mining rights in

Berner,et al v. Montour ZHB,et al Apl: Sponenberg

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2019

virtue of its size,1 and, paradoxically, 1As explained in greater detail herein, I do not dispute the NMA places no obligations on Applicant, whose farm is not a concentrated animal operation (CAO) or voluntary also immune … With regard to the matter sub judice, the General Assembly has not clearly established what it intended to preempt by enacting Section 519.

Commonwealth v. Saccol

384 Pa. Super. 161 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1989

at the establishment, with whom appellee was romantically involved. … Clearly, they did not give appellee consent in aid of their own arrest and incrimination.