Case law

White's Appeal

287 Pa. 259 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 1926

Obedience to such regulation is not taking property without due process; that clause does not qualify the police power: C., B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Drainage Commissioners, 200 U. S. 561 ; Salem v. … Section 32 (b) establishes a building line on streets wholly or partially built up.

Bachman v. Zoning Hearing Board of Bern Township

508 Pa. 180 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 1985

Although he testified that he “was consciously working with that aspect in mind,” 2 the record clearly shows that he never took any steps in that direction. … In an analogous situation, where a landowner attempted to establish that he operated a nonconforming use prior to a zoning change, this Court, by Mr.

In Re Tameka M.

368 Pa. Super. 525 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1987

The sole issue in Lowry, supra, was the certification of a foster home as a qualified foster home for placement of a *544 child by the Juvenile Court. … The court, in effect, held that it was the court and not the Children and Youth Services which determined qualification and once qualification was established, then certification could follow.

Robinson v. City of Philadelphia

329 Pa. Super. 139 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 1984

The jury clearly decided, as is evidenced through their answers to special interrogatories, that the appellee was not negligent. … Appellant presently argues that Pennsylvania should abandon this well-established evidentiary rule. Upon reviewing this position, we conclude it has no merit.

Fitzpatrick v. Penfield

267 Pa. 564 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1920

To establish negligence, it must appear that some duty has been unperformed, and without the violation of the duty there can be no negligence. … The court below was clearly right in holding that this was not often or continued enough to presuppose an invitation to use the lot' as a special or general recreation place, or to stamp it as a playground, and the court

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Maurer v. O'Neill.

368 Pa. 369 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 1951

There is clearly nothing in that language to warrant such a conclusion nor is there a basis in any other part of the opinion. … The preference is not permitted to be employed as an aid in establishing eligibility.

Chase Appeal

389 Pa. 538 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1957

Section 1701(a) provides, inter alia, that the Court of Common Pleas, upon petition of three qualified electors of an election district setting forth that they believe that fraud or error was committed in the computation … The evidence clearly justified the Court below in its conclusion that these petitions were filed too late.

Borough of New Cumberland v. Police Employees

503 Pa. 16 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1983

The board of arbitration thus established shall commence the arbitration proceedings within ten days after the third arbitrator is selected and shall make its determination within thirty days after the appointment of the … As the Legislature clearly designed Act 111 in recognition of the desirability of permitting each party to select a board member who will “represent” its interests, and whose expertise, reliability, and sense of judgment

Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc.

522 Pa. 86 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 1989

This result is indicated by express provisions of the PHRA, as well as established judicial interpretations of legislative intent. … A right to a remedy for discrimination in employment is established by the PHRA, 43 P.S. § 953, where it is provided, “The opportunity for an individual to obtain employment for which he is qualified ... without discrimination

In Re Condemnation by the Urban Redevelopment Authority

527 Pa. 550 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1991

It does not establish that legal rights are affected by the certification itself. … Such is clearly not the scheme provided in the Law itself, and the constitutional guarantees of due process cannot be stretched to hold that it is constitutionally required.

Lytle v. Mehaffy

8 Watts 267 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 1839

of a defendant’s personal property, by virtue of an execution against him, either divests him of his right of property therein, or amounts to a satisfaction of the debt, it must be understood to be so only sub modo, in a qualified … As to the question, whether the bringing of the action by Share against Duffy, was such a damage to the latter as to amount to a breach of the condition of the bond given by Lytle and Pedan to Duffy and Mehaffy, we are clearly

Commonwealth v. Williams

514 Pa. 62 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1987

Ballistics experts established that the Mac-10 machine pistol had inflicted the fatal wounds upon Bradley. … [Juvenile court] jurisdiction confers special rights and immunities. [The juvenile] is, as specified by the statute, shielded from publicity.

JOHNSTON, INC. v. Com., Dept. of Revenue

556 Pa. 22 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1999

Although we are perplexed at the Board’s failure to discover long established precedent from this court which is squarely on point, we do not agree with Johnston that constitutional principles require that this court compound … The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any

Snyder Bros., Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n

198 A.3d 1056 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2018

The PUC concludes that all of these factors establish that the language in question is far from clear and unambiguous. … Further, the SCA establishes specific presumptions applicable to the interpretation and construction of all statutes which are aids in determining legislative intent.

Commonwealth v. Hipp

380 Pa. Super. 345 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1988

Individuals clearly have a privacy interest in their medical records which “finds explicit protection in the Pennsylvania Constitution, Art. … (b) Immunity from civil or criminal liability. — No physician, nurse or technician or hospital employing such physician, nurse of technician and no other employer of such physician, nurse or technician shall be civilly or

Search's Appeal

13 Pa. 108 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1850

By that act, he was reduced to the condition of a simple legatee, having, it is true, an interest in the establishment of the will. … Weir, 7 Serg. & Rawle 311 , and it is so much matter of course to insert,, in releases and transfers made to qualify witnesses, the words “ for valuable consideration,” without receiving any thing of value, that they ought

Mathewson v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

394 Pa. 518 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1959

This chronological displacement thus could only mean that the employee was given the vested right of an established monetary benefit entirely removed from the intrinsic meaning and significance of the holiday itself. … JUSTICE BELL: "The Emergency Furlough" provision in the collective bargaining contract, in my judgment, clearly prevails over the holiday pay provision.

Greenwood v. Hildebrand

357 Pa. Super. 253 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1986

Such an out-of-state student is presumed to lack the intention necessary to establish a new domicile. Shishko v. State Farm Insurance Co., supra. … Clearly, Pennsylvania and Kentucky have different laws regarding *263 the admissibility of medical bills which are not recoverable under their no-fault acts.

Commonwealth v. Albrecht

554 Pa. 31 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 1998

In determining that these statements do not qualify as excited utterances, the Majority essentially finds, in the first instance, that the violent argument between the Albrechts was not a sufficiently startling occurrence … Rather, I believe that a child witnessing the physical abuse of his mother can clearly be considered a shocking event for purposes of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See Commonwealth v.

Cryder v. Garrison

387 Pa. 571 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1957

If that had been her wish and intent she could and would have clearly said so because she knew how to so provide, having specifically provided in her will: “In the event either of said Executors fails to qualify or dies prior … Ever since the Law of Wills became established, it has been the settled and unquestioned rule that — unless the testator clearly provided otherwise — (a) a devise or legacy lapses {except where the gift is to children or