Case law

Tahiti Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case

395 Pa. 355 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1959

the legislature, by such a statutory provision, intended thereby to preclude the Board from the adoption of any regulation prohibiting other, types of conduct on the licensed premises which might lead to the same evils is clearly … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due iwocess of law; nor

Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Scott

684 A.2d 539 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1996

is entitled to this information so that his choice to take a breathalyzer test can be knowing and conscious and we believe that requiring the police to qualify the extent of the right to counsel is neither onerous nor will … To the contrary, appellee herein testified that he was clearly aware of what the officers had explained to him regarding the right to counsel and its inapplicability to chemical testing.

Zeigenfuse v. Boltz

401 Pa. 365 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1960

On September 13, 1960, the plaintiffs, as qualified electors of Schuylkill County residing in the portions of Barry Township annexed, as above stated, to Butler Township, filed their complaint in the instant suit against … Indeed, in the light of the unmistakable legislative intent so clearly expressed in the above quoted portion of Section 2 of the Act of 1953, it is difficult to perceive how the question now under consideration was ever seriously

Jones v. Maffet

5 Serg. & Rawle 523 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1820

The distinction between devises of naked authority, and of authority coupled with an interest, is subtle and refined; but this is clearly of the latter kind. … Private acts, affect only particular individuals; most frequently contain grants, privileges, and immunities to an individual.

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

Commonwealth v. Spotz

562 Pa. 498 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2000

Appellant’s complaint premised upon the Impellizzeri case clearly fails. … Further, he stated that he has been qualified as an expert in ballistics in other cases.

Cinquina v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.

362 Pa. 546 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1949

A green light at a traffic intersection offers but a qualified permission to proceed, and the pedestrian crossing in reliance upon it must continually be on guard for his safety: Schroeder v. Pittsburgh Rwys. … [The] presumption does not avail plaintiff in the face of the testimony of her own witness clearly establishing the negligence of decedent”: Weldon v. Pittsburgh Rwys. Co., 352 Pa. 103, 106 , 41 A. 2d 856 .

Commonwealth v. Mayfield

574 Pa. 460 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2003

While Lawrence clearly establishes a due process right of consenting adults to engage in private sexual conduct free from governmental interference, the United States Supreme Court was careful to qualify the reach of its … is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 302(c).

Kituskie v. Corbman

552 Pa. 275 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1998

A majority of courts in other jurisdictions have placed the burden of proving collectibility on the plaintiff because it is viewed as being closely related to the issue of proximate cause, a burden which clearly the plaintiff … affirmative defenses including but not limited to the defenses of accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, consent, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fair comment, fraud, illegality, immunity

School District v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

417 Pa. 277 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1965

The School District maintains that the limitations enumerated in §18 clearly manifest that the legislature did not intend the City to interfere with the construction of public school buildings. … We further find, in view of the School District’s lack of police power, the failure of the legislature to provide minimum standards, and the lack of state pre-emption in this field, that the School District is not immune

Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

573 Pa. 189 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2003

However, contrary to the City’s assertions, the Supreme Court has never held that gross receipts taxes as a whole are immune from apportionment. … See Note, The DirectTV NFL Sunday Ticket: An Economic Plea for Antitrust Law Immunity, 79 Wash.

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.

Beale v. Commonwealth

25 Pa. 11 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1855

That adverb qualifies the act of administering the oath to the jury— they were duly sworn. When a party is duly sworn he is sworn according to law: Edge v. The Commonwealth, 7 Barr 277; Clarke v. Benford, 10 Harris 855. … But the sentence is clearly, erroneous.

Dufour v. Maize

358 Pa. 309 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1947

Appellant’s points for charge, which were affirmed by the hearing judge, would establish the following facts: There is a seam of bituminous coal above fireclay; the latter is recovered by open pit or stripping methods identical … Assembly shall not pass any local or special law: Regulating labor, trade, mining or manufacturing”: Pennsylvania Constitution, Art. 3, Section 7. 2 “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

COM., DEPT. OF TRANS. v. Scott

546 Pa. 241 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1996

is entitled to this information so that his choice to take a breathalyzer test can be knowing and conscious and we believe that requiring the police to qualify the extent of the right to counsel is neither onerous nor will … To the contrary, appellee herein testified that he was clearly aware of what the officers had explained to him regarding the right to counsel and its inapplicability to chemical testing.

Annenberg v. Roberts

333 Pa. 203 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1938

It follows that, because of the inhibition contained in Article III, section 25, of the State Constitution, the clause of the act is clearly invalid which provides that if the commission is unable to complete its investigation … To compel an individual to produce evidence, under penalties if he refuses, is in effect a search and seizure, and, unless confined to proper limits, violates his constitutional right to immunity in that regard: Boyd v.

Commonwealth v. Ali

608 Pa. 71 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2010

This Court concluded that the deputy coroner was qualified to produce a report based upon the facts he observed during the course of the autopsies. … On the merits of appellant’s general ineffectiveness/alibi claim, the Commonwealth argues that appellant’s theory that El’s out-of-court statement establishes an alibi clearly entails use of El’s statement for the truth of

Gratz v. Gratz

4 Rawle 411 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 1834

This agreement for partition, however clearly and satisfactorily it might be established, being verbal and never reduced to writing, comes within the act of assembly against frauds and perjuries, and cannot pass the right … Without this they cannot act at all; and if they do any act not authorised by the terms of the submission, it is clearly void.

Weeks, J., Aplts. v. DHS

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2023

Article III, Section 3, otherwise known as “the single subject rule,” provides: “No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill … Such programs, according to Appellants, could also include “restaurant and retail food inspection, air and water quality, animal control, [and] inspection of barber and beauty establishments[.]”

Commonwealth v. Zortman

611 Pa. 22 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2011

Consequently, the Commonwealth was under no obligation to establish operability.” 520 A.2d at 432-33 . … The Commonwealth adds that “[bjeside this omission, the definition’s orientation to design and convertibility appear to recognize, albeit tacitly, that a qualifying object might not be instantly functional.”