Case law

Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare v. Forbes Health System

492 Pa. 77 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1980

This section clearly speaks in the alternative. 5 Either “[h]ospital outpatient clinics or approved physician group practices *83 that have assumed the complete operation of a hospital outpatient clinic or emergency room … by the department for (i) other laboratory and X-ray services prescribed by a physician, chiropractor or podiatrist and furnished by a facility other than a hospital which is qualified to participate under Title XIX of the

In Re Estate of Pitone

489 Pa. 60 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1980

Clearly, the legislature did not intend by this legislation that under no circumstances would a personal representative ever have a duty to invest estate funds. … To require a new executor to qualify and administer the estate might cause additional delay and expense.

Democratic County Committee Appeal

415 Pa. 327 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 1964

What is the use of a State having election laws to govern an election, what is the use of having clearly marked voting machines, and rows on the voting machines which were clearly marked for a Republican pandidate and for … He is furnished on his *336 request with a card of instruction and a specimen ballot, and if by reason of any disability he desires assistance in the preparation of his ballot he is permitted to select a qualified elector

In Re Tameka M.

525 Pa. 348 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1990

First, he noted that the law establishes the local agencies and charges them with providing treatment and services, including services as legal custodian of dependent children under the Juvenile Act. … It was clearly not error to ignore reimbursability in this situation. The Juvenile Act, as reinforced by our case law, was passed for the benefit of dependent children and is based on humanitarian ideals.

Ashhurst v. Montour Iron Co.

35 Pa. 30 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1860

They establish the relation of debtor and creditor, rather than of trustee and cestui que trust. … It is one of those cases over which courts of chancery entertain jurisdiction under the head of account, and is clearly within our Act of 1836.

Constant A. v. Paul C.A.

344 Pa. Super. 49 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 1985

Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir.1982) (Court of Appeals affirmed federal district court’s holding that marriage between persons of same sex did not qualify one of the parties, who was an alien as citizen’s spouse pursuant … established they would suffer severe detriment by the *68 order suggested by the appellant.

Commonwealth v. Bartley

411 Pa. 286 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 1963

Both of these possibilities were clearly refuted by positive Commonwealth evidence. … liberty and his good name — it is that no person may be convicted of crime unless the evidence establishes his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Easley

341 Pa. Super. 381 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1985

I went on *391 to business school so I could qualify for a good paying job. I did just that. Although, I was getting $175 bi-monthly, I felt it enough to take care of all three of us. … TURNER [the Prosecutor]: Yes, your Honor, I think that the evidence clearly establishes that Saundra Easley with full knowledge was employed and receiving assistance through this period of time in question.

Stewart v. Hadley (White)

327 Pa. 66 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1937

He shall be elected and give bond as now provided by law and shall hold office for a term of four years and until his successor is elected and qualified.” … The title must speak for itself and clearly declare the legislative purpose.

Williamson Estate

368 Pa. 343 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1951

Dale, were named, and thereafter qualified, as executors of the will. … Unless such discretion is clearly abused the judgment of the court below will not be disturbed.”

Hammons, P. v. Ethicon, Inc., Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2020

Despite these recent decisions, the underpinnings of personal jurisdiction are well established. … should not be the basis of a jurisdictional analysis, which should instead focus on “the defendant’s relationship to the forum State:” “Indeed, to treat each plaintiff's claim as an independent unit that must independently qualify

Commonwealth v. Gallagher

353 Pa. Super. 426 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 1986

Thus, while the witness was undoubtedly qualified *460 to discuss the RTS phenomenon as a result of her broad experience and work in this area, there is nothing in the record to qualify her as a medical expert, one who could … Hutchinson, 331 Pa.Super. 404 , 480 A.2d 1096 (1984), and the decision to admit the testimony should not be reversed unless the trial court clearly abused that discretion. Junk v.

McMahon v. Sloan

12 Pa. 229 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1849

R. 367; and though it was finally established as an exception, under the qualified negotiability of bills of lading, the concession was everywhere made that, in the words of Lord Loughborough, “ mere possession, without a … The case was thought to be a hard one, but the Court observed, “ This point is clearly settled, and the law must remain as it is, until the legislature think fit to provide that the possession of such chattels is proof of

Commonwealth v. Liederkrantz

450 Pa. 423 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1973

The required information on the yearly application is then checked to determine if the licensee qualifies as originally, for a license covering a new year’s period. … The Code clearly states that there are two licenses; one license for the previous year and one, the renewal license, for the subsequent year.

Commonwealth v. Koehler

614 Pa. 159 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2012

XXVI, at 21 (where the prosecutor, in closing argument, stated that no immunity was given to Schrader and that Schrader’s testimony could be used against him). … , whether lawfully or not, and Schrader himself acknowledged that he had no form of immunity.”

Hood v. Hood

2 Grant 229 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1859

The evidence was clearly insufficient to support that character of defence. … The force of the objection to the qualifying observation of the court, in affirming plaintiff’s twelfth point, depends upon whether there was any evidence that David acquired his eight acres from McClelland, instead of John

Sprague v. Walter

518 Pa. 425 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 1988

It has become increasingly apparent that the confines of that privilege must be more clearly delineated. … This particular privilege was clearly designed to be an absolute one in that it immunizes the media against any legal compulsion directed at requiring disclosure of the source of the information.

Eisenhower v. Hall's Motor Transit Co.

351 Pa. 200 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1944

Leroy assisted John on the truck in the work of loading and unloading *203 and thus presumably was “learning something” that would qualify him for subsequent employment by the company. … The skidding of a vehicle does not, in and of itself, establish negligence, it being incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that it resulted from the negligence of the defendant: Johnson v.

Snyder Appeal

398 Pa. 237 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1960

Superior Ct. 383 , President Judge Keller said: “The privilege extends to the disclosure of any fact which might constitute an essential link in a chain of evidence by which guilt might be established, although that fact … While acknowledging that Barbara had not and could not have waived at the trial her constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, the Superior Court said, nevertheless, that she could not rely on the constitutional immunity

Taylor v. Celotex Corp.

393 Pa. Super. 566 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 1990

Sturgis was not properly qualified to testify as an expert regarding state of the art because she did not qualify “as a biostatistician, a toxicologist, a mineralogist, a product labeling expert, an industrial hygienist, … Taylor and the Taylor children to be exposed to secondhand asbestos dust was clearly improper.