Case law

Laffey v. CT. OF COM. PL. OF CUMBER. CTY.

503 Pa. 103 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1983

an integrated bar in this Commonwealth, thereby eliminating the power of local bars to determine or *107 qualify their membership. … bar of all courts of this Commonwealth, without further act or oath, establishing in reality one bar throughout Pennsylvania.

Cody v. S.K.F. Industries, Inc.

447 Pa. 558 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1972

Cannon’s testimony does not fit within one exception to the hearsay rule does not automatically exclude it from qualifying under another exception to the hearsay rule. … We believe that as long as there are no circumstances casting suspicion on the genuineness of the utterances, statements as to cause clearly meet the trustworthiness test. 2 Cf.

Commonwealth v. Murray

623 Pa. 506 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2013

Surveillance video from inside of the store revealed Pennington present during that time, and clearly pregnant. … Thus, so long as Attorney Alva met the requirements of Rule 801 on September 13, 2002, three years prior to the entry of appearance, he was qualified to represent Appellant in this case.

Commonwealth v. Davis

330 Pa. Super. 551 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 1985

Section 6356 is clearly an implementation of this goal, and so appellant must first demonstrate that he comes within the provisions of the Juvenile Act. … Thus, the hearing of September 30, 1980, did not qualify as one of the proceedings to which the protections of the Juvenile Act attached.

Simon Will

381 Pa. 284 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1955

Furthermore, a duly qualified handwriting expert testified that the purported signature of decedent on this paper is a forgery. … Proponents’ testimony and that of their witnesses concerning the preparation and execution of the three wills is far from convincing and is clearly a matter for determination by a jury.

Ferreira v. Wilson Borough

344 Pa. 567 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1942

When a condition can be described so clearly that a jury can determine as well as the witness whether the condition is a dangerous one, there is no warrant for the admission of opinion testimony on this point. … Lovell, 7 Cush. 321, Chief Justice Shaw said of the “experience” which qualifies witnesses to express an “expert opinion”: [It must not be] “of such a nature that it may be presumed to be within the common experience of all

Beary v. Container General Corp.

368 Pa. Super. 61 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1987

Chamberlin, who was qualified by the court to testify as an expert witness. Container argues that Chamberlin’s opinion testimony “was based on mere speculation and assumed facts never established of record.” … The law regarding the qualification of a witness as an expert is well-established.

Petty v. Hospital Service Ass'n

611 Pa. 119 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2011

Appellants argue the existence of a special relationship between themselves and Blue Cross as subscribers was established by Blue Cross’s articles of incorporation, which clearly provide that the corporation contemplated … The contentious statutory language in this instance is “or otherwise,” as appellants do not propose they qualify as one of the specific titles listed.

Coleman v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

577 Pa. 38 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2004

Paula T., 524 Pa. 306, 571 A.2d 1380, 1385-86 (Pa.1990) (discussing use of blood tests to establish paternity); cf. … The fact that immunizations and vaccinations are sometimes performed in nonclinical environments, such as the workplace or schools, suggests injections are not unreasonably intrusive.

Basile v. H & R BLOCK, INC.

563 Pa. 359 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2000

Block also arranged for Mellon Bank (DE) National Association (Mellon Bank) to provide a refund anticipation loan (RAL) program to Block’s qualified Rapid Refund customers. … Our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. Cochran v.

Pennsylvania Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Commonwealth Department of General Services

593 Pa. 580 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2007

Thus, Section 513 clearly and explicitly includes construction contracts within its scope. 62 Pa.C.S. §§ 103, 513(a). … The majority finds that section 513 and section 322(6) of the Procurement Code are clearly in conflict.

Commonwealth ex rel. Raucci v. Price

409 Pa. 90 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1962

The testimony offered at the second hearing clearly qualifies as alibi evidence, which is assuredly, of no importance in extradition proceedings. … The extradition papers clearly charge that Louis Raucci committed a crime in the State of Ohio and further charge him as a fugitive from that State.

Commonwealth v. Zoller

507 Pa. 344 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1985

This concept of the protection intended to be afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause is clearly reflected in the U.S. Supreme Court’s articulation of the central design of the guarantee: “... … “First, the Court has recognized that society would pay too high a price were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in proceedings leading to conviction

Commonwealth v. McGrogan

367 Pa. Super. 394 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1987

The evidence presented at trial established the following facts. … Thus, the right to confront witnesses is qualified by existing testimonial privi *400 leges of witnesses, including the privilege against self-incrimination. See Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Morales

508 Pa. 51 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1985

Szuchon, 506 Pa. 228 , 484 A.2d 1365, 1380-81 (1984): Appellant claims that the scientific and sociological surveys and data currently available have now conclusively established the “prosecution-proneness” of “death-qualified … As Travaglia and Beasley make clear, the character of the defendant is established by the determination of guilt, not by subsequent proceedings.

Rutenberg v. Philadelphia

329 Pa. 26 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1937

Over a period of fifty years but few changes were made in the magisterial system established under the Act of 1875. … The situation here is clearly different from that found in the Family Court Act (Com. ex rel. v.

Commonwealth v. Britcher

386 Pa. Super. 515 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 1989

Viewed in this light, the record establishes the following. … The well-qualified expert in this case did not contradict that generalization.

City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Brasten)

556 Pa. 400 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 1999

The rationale for requiring a showing of abnormal working conditions is to establish the causal connection between a psychic injury and the employment. … Appellant has met his burden of showing, by substantial evidence, that abnormal working conditions gave rise to his mental disability and that he thereby qualifies for compensation under the mental/mental paradigm. *409 Accordingly

Kaufmann v. Liggett

67 L.R.A. 353 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1904

Justice Mitchell there said (p. 177) : “ The jurisdiction of equity to restrain actions at law is too well established to require discussion, and there is nothing in the act of 1772 to give proceedings under it any immunity … Clearly the question of whether or not an extension should be made was not left open to be determined by arbitration. That much at least was definitely fixed by the contract.

Bailets v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

633 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2015

After his termination, appellant applied to the Commission three times for open positions for which he was qualified, but there was no response to his applications. Id., at 16-21; Complaint, ¶¶ 48-50. … Did the [c]ourt err as a matter of law in holding that [appellee] Grieshaber would be immune from Whistleblower [Law] liability if he was a peer of [appellant] at the time [appellant] complained to his superiors