Case law

In Re DLH

2 A.3d 505 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2010

When applying this standard to the present case, the court concluded that the evidence was inadequate to establish, clearly and convincingly, that refusing mechanical ventilation was in David's best interest, particularly … 5461, clearly conveys that the statute advances other purposes as well.

DePaul v. Commonwealth

600 Pa. 573 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2009

Concurrently with PEDP’s application for a Category 2 slot machine license, DePaul applied to the Board for a gaming license as a “key employee qualifier” of PEDP. … Thereafter, and effective November 1, 2006, the Gaming Act was amended, and the term “key employee qualifier” was replaced with the term “principal.” 5 It is undisputed that DePaul qualifies as a principal under the Gaming

Spain v. Vicente

315 Pa. Super. 135 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1983

The complaint in the case at bar is clearly inadequate. For this reason alone, the summary judgment was properly entered. … As we have stated above, the *143 statements made by appellant himself at his deposition militate against the likelihood of establishing a cause of action.

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. 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.

Brown v. Brown

352 Pa. Super. 267 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1986

We agree. 3 *273 “Where property or an account is placed in the names of a husband and wife, a gift, and the creation of an estate by the entireties is presumed even though the funds used to acquire the property or to establish … We note that: the court’s power to direct a partition of property is qualified by its duty to divide marital property in an equitable way. If the property is not marital property, the court may direct its partition.

First Presbyterian Congregation v. Smith

163 Pa. 561 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1894

And there was some evidence tending to establish this part of plaintiff’s case. It seems to be made more prominent here than in the court below. … Clearly the city had in fact resumed full possession of this part of it.

Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.

578 Pa. 479 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2004

On the other hand, the SBL Agreement clearly represented the parties’ contract concerning the sale of SBLs. … Appellees subsequently conceded that SEA was indeed immune from any such liability. See Second Proposed Order attached to Plaintiff’s Brf. in Opposition to Defendants’ Preliminary Objections; see also Appellees' Commw.

Fallaro v. Yeager

364 Pa. Super. 408 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1987

This has been clearly established through statute and procedural rules. See 48 P.S. § 92; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5341 et seq.; Pa.R.C.P. 1915.1-1915.25. A dependency determination is completely governed by statute. … It is clearly improper for a court to bypass the procedures and safeguards established to protect these rights by invoking the “best interest of the child.”

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. Woodall

397 Pa. Super. 96 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1990

Thus, an appellate court will reverse a trial court’s finding of no discrimination only if that finding is clearly erroneous. Id. at 349, 350. (Citations omitted). As enumerated in Commonwealth v. … Jackson, where it has been determined that the defendant has established a prima facie case of discrimination, the prosecution’s explanation must satisfy certain minimal requirements to qualify as legally sufficient.

Honey, H. v. Lycoming Co. Offices of Voter Svcs.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2026

Thus, she was not a “qualified elector” under Section 308 of the Election Code. … The physical ballot is clearly “something contained” in the ballot box.

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

Gibson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

580 Pa. 470 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2004

Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 26th ed. 798 (1995). [4] A B-reader is one qualified by examination to quantify and qualify the presence of asbestos-related disease precursors on chest x-rays, and is also known as a "final … The B-reader is considered more qualified than any reader other than an A-reader.

Gibbs v. Ernst

538 Pa. 193 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 1994

Had the legislature intended for the Adoption Act to provide intermediaries with immunity from common law sanctions, it would have said so explicitly. … It is a long established principle of the common law that a duty may be established by statute. See, e.g., Gilson v. Doe, 143 Pa.Commw. 591, 596, 600 A.2d 267, 270 (1991); Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Martin

479 Pa. 63 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1978

Evidence which is not objectionable is clearly not a ground for declaring a mistrial. See e. g., Fleischman v. Reading, 388 Pa. 183, 188-93 , 130 A.2d 429, 432-34 (1957). … First, whether or not a witness is qualified as an “expert” is within the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be overturned unless clear abuse occurs. Commonwealth v.

Pennsylvania Railroad v. Zebe

33 Pa. 318 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1858

The point asserted immunity to the company, if the plaintiff and his son voluntarily placed themselves on the other track of the road, unless in case of gross negligence on part of the company. … and to establish this, more was necessary to be proven than that the plaintiff and the injured son voluntarily chose to depart from the cars by an unusual way.

Pierontoni v. Barber

384 Pa. 56 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1956

There can be little question that Coolick was well qualified to make the estimate he gave. … We are satisfied, without here repeating the analysis made, that the charge covered the issues adequately, fairly, clearly, and correctly.

Nicolazzo Estate

414 Pa. 186 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1964

Nicolazzo, qualified as executrix of his estate. On, or shortly before, July 7, 1953, the claimant, Domenico Rizzo (Rizzo) presented his claim based on an unsealed demand note in the face amount of $2,000. … Claims against a decedent’s estate can be established only by evidence which is clear, direct, precise and convincing: Secary Estate, 407 Pa. 162, 164 , 180 A. 2d 572, 573 (1962) ; Gadola Estate, 410 Pa. 250, 252 , 188 A.

Danboro & Plumsteadville Turnpike Road Co. v. Bucks County

258 Pa. 391 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1917

Were we to have regard to this section of the act standing by itself, disassociated from the other provisions of the act which are supposed to qualify if not to negative directly any such import as is imputed to it, the argument … So clearly is this so for the reasons indicated that we deem it unnecessary to discuss the corroborative features found in the act supporting the conclusion reached.