Case law

Marcellus Shale Coalition v. DEP, Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2023

Commw. 2000), as three cases establishing that agencies must be clearly authorized to wield the asserted powers. … Commw. 2000), as a case establishing that an agency must be clearly authorized to wield a specific power. That case is readily distinguishable.

Robinson v. Trenton Dressed Poultry Co.

344 Pa. Super. 545 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1985

As the trial court correctly observed, Robinson’s filing of the Praecipe for Issuance of a Writ of Summons clearly constituted the “commencement” of an action under Pa.R.C.P. 1007(1). See Ehrhardt v. … That court then went on to qualify the rule, its purpose being to avoid the situation in which a plaintiff can bring an action but, by not making a good-faith effort to notify a defendant, retain exclusive control over it

Commonwealth v. Smith

518 Pa. 15 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1988

Appellant’s second and third arguments regarding pretrial procedures in capital cases involve the procedures on voir dire for death-qualifying a jury: he argues that death-qualifying a jury violates “the Eighth and Fourteenth … Appellant asserts that these reports qualified as exceptions to the hearsay rule under the “business records exception.” These arguments are without merit.

Lennox v. Clark

372 Pa. 355 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1953

Philadelphia, 371 Pa. 255 , 89 A. 2d 496 , that such employes were entitled to retention in service until afforded the opportunity to pass such qualifying test. … This provision also is clearly self-executing.

Union Canal Co. v. Young

1 Whart. 410 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1836

I must, however, be permitted to observe, that the evidence shows, roost clearly, a parol contract of the 1st of April, 1792, of which a memorandum, in writing, was made in the hand writing of William Young, some time in … They contend that the plaintiff acquired but a base or qualified fee; and if it be so, it is a flat bar to the plaintiffs’ action.

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.

Commonwealth v. Garland

393 Pa. 45 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1958

The use of the permissive “may” 5 in this statute clearly manifests the legislative intent that the issuance of a “temporary restraining order or injunction” rests in the court’s discretion. … determination “on the merits” means that the grant of an injunction depends on the rights and duties of the respective parties based on ultimate facts: it requires a consideration of the various elements which enter into or qualify

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.

B. & O. Employees' Rel. Ass'n v. Post

122 Pa. 579 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 1888

We are clearly of the opinion that it was error to admit the declarations of the paymaster. This disposes of the first assignment of error. The second axxd third are also srxstained. … This was clearly error, as it left the jury no standard save their own consciences, which is too uncertain for practical purposes.

Commonwealth v. Buccieri

153 Pa. 535 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1893

What are the facts here, either not in dispute or clearly established. … In his charge to the jury in Drum’s Case, 58 Pa. 9 , Justice Agnew quotes this expression, and says: “ It must be qualified, lest it mislead.”

City of Philadelphia v. Watkins

343 Pa. Super. 380 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 1985

Appellees’ testimony and exhibits, including before and after pictures of the premises, established beyond a doubt that the property was unsafe and uninhabitable without extensive renovations. … Scarborough’s employment background, we believe he was qualified to testify as to these repairs. Appellees also produced receipts for every cost they incurred.

Kopko v. Miller

586 Pa. 170 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2006

technical aspects of wiretapping and electronic surveillance as allowed or permitted by this subchapter, shall establish such regulations as they find necessary and proper for such training program and shall establish mini … Although the Constitution establishes the office, it does not describe the duties of a sheriff.

Kuren v. Luzerne County

637 Pa. 33 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2016

Other than Flora, the plaintiffs identified themselves as persons charged with crimes in Luzerne County, each of whom qualified for the OPD’s services. … It would render irrelevant all deprivations of the right at the earliest stages of a criminal process so long as they do not clearly affect the substantive outcome of a trial.

Serefeas v. Nationwide Insurance

338 Pa. Super. 587 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1985

The plaintiff in this case qualifies as an insured; appellant concedes this, but denies her benefits because she was injured too far from Pennsylvania. … The exclusion was clearly not adopted by the legislature, so our court struck both the insurance department’s regulation and the particular policy’s exclusion.

Short v. Allegheny Trust Co.

330 Pa. 55 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1938

Such cross-examination “may embrace any matter germane to the direct examination, qualifying or destroying it, or tending to develop facts which have been improperly suppressed or ignored by the plaintiff”: Conley v. … Integrity Trust Co., 317 Pa. 513, 517 . *62 Plaintiff’s final contention is that the charge was inadequate and did not clearly present the issues to the jury.

Commonwealth v. Carter

593 Pa. 562 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2007

upon its review of the trial court’s evidentiary ruling, we keep in mind that “[t]he admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly … Appellee contends McCloud precludes a report which establishes an element of the crime to be read into evidence without the opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the report; in McCloud, the element at issue was

Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, N.A. v. Kessler

2012 Pa. Super. 100 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2012

That order established the priority of liens recorded against the subject property. … Specifically, the language of Section 1508(c)(2) clearly enumerates what the proceeds of the open-end mortgage may be used to fund in order to qualify for the exception. See 49 Pa.S.A. § 1508(c)(2).

Phillips v. Cricket Lighters

576 Pa. 644 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2003

We noted that the electrical capacitor was intended to be accessed and used only by qualified electricians, and not general members of the public. … As to the first prong of the Althaus test, there was clearly a relationship between Robyn, as the purchaser of the butane lighter, and Appellants.

Commonwealth v. Leamer

449 Pa. 76 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1972

coroner, or, if the case require it, two citizens, to be appointed by the court for that purpose, shall, upon the order of the court, immediately summon and return from the bystanders, or from the county at large, so many qualified … Finally, evidence of guilt, considering appellant’s confession, was clearly sufficient to convict without any resort to a prior criminal record.

Commonwealth v. Vogel

501 Pa. 314 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1983

Justice Pomeroy also clearly indicates that his joinder in the order of reversal was as a result of his concern for the proper effect to be given to the “presumption of sanity.” Commonwealth v. … It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction. U.S. v.