Case law

Liberto v. Liberto

360 Pa. Super. 284 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1987

The marriage clearly was irretrievably broken. We are asked nevertheless to hold it improper to grant a divorce pursuant to Section 201(d) without first ordering counseling when a party requests it. … Rather the evidentiary hearing conducted by the lower court establishes that the entire course of dealing between the parties since August 1982 contained little or no efforts by either party to preserve the marriage.

Ben v. Schwartz

556 Pa. 475 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1999

This privilege, however, is not absolute but qualified; and when asserted, requires the court to balance the government’s interest in ensuring the secrecy of the documents whose discovery is sought against the need of the … Such a result clearly was not contemplated by the legislature when it enacted the Right to Know Law.

Commonwealth v. Williams

532 Pa. 265 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1992

The test for establishing sufficiency is whether the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict-winner, are sufficient to establish all the … The following facts established by the-'evidence produced by the Commonwealth clearly satisfy this test.

Madden v. Glosztonyi Savings & Trust Co.

331 Pa. 476 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1938

President Judge Keller clearly distinguished the cases where deposits were payable to either husband or wife, on the ground that while in such cases there can exist authority to withdraw the corpus, there was no such authority … This conclusion establishes the immunity of the appellant bank, but, as above shown, in no way affects the rights as between the husband and wife. O’Malley v. O’Malley, Gasner v. Pierce and Berhalter v.

Behers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

577 Pa. 55 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2004

The referee reasoned that a work stoppage would constitute a lock-out, and thereby qualify the employees for unemployment compensation benefits, only if “the employees offered to continue working for a reasonable time under … Clearly, this is not the case. The expired agreements provide for voluntary overtime work which the individual employees were free to accept or decline.

Commonwealth v. Mlinarich

518 Pa. 247 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1988

It is also of significance to our decision to note that subsection (2) of section 3121 qualifies the “threat” as being one that “would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution.” … The question here is whether the return of a person to confinement qualifies as a threat of forcible compulsion sufficient to overcome reasonable resolve.

Lochrie's Estate

340 Pa. 145 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1940

In 1922, years before he made his will, he had established separate trust funds for his wife and eleven children. … Neil was about twelve years old in 1922 when the inter vivos trusts were established.

Local 730 v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

505 Pa. 480 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 1984

The Union’s representatives clearly required sufficient time in which to ascertain the consensus of the membership regarding the difficult decision whether or not to stop work. … Vrotney by its express language qualified the length of time during which this status quo must be maintained by stating: "has the employer agreed to permit work to continue for a reasonable time under the preexisting terms

Commonwealth v. Berta

356 Pa. Super. 403 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 1986

Trooper Lloyd’s testimony at trial revealed that the barrel of the antique gun replica was approximately six inches, thus clearly within the twelve inch maximum stated in Section 6102. (N.T. 7). … Jennings, 285 Pa.Super. 295, 304 , 427 A.2d 231, 235 (1981) the court said: “[a] reasonable fact finder may ... infer operability [which is also an essential element to be proven in establishing violations of Sections 6105

Commonwealth v. Bell

328 Pa. Super. 35 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1984

His Statement of Questions Involved is clearly in violation of the limitations established by Pa.R.A.P. Rule 2116(a). … The sentencing court did not establish an aggregate minimum sentence.

Leventhal v. City of Philadelphia

518 Pa. 233 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 1988

The principles which govern analysis of the claims asserted here are well established. … The record clearly demonstrates that the restriction of the Act to first class cities was a proper and rational exercise of legislative judgment.

Noonan Estate

361 Pa. 26 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 1948

But, she well knew, nonetheless, that the executor was preferring her as a purchaser over the beneficiary who had clearly expressed his desire to retain the property unsold. … The time for. preserving the lien of decedent’s debts having expired and-all. debts of. record having been paid, as established by the decree of the Orphans’ Court upon the audit of the executor’s first and final account,

Steets, K., Aplt. v. Celebration Fireworks (WCAB)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2025

When the worker dies due to the work injury, Subsection 306(g) does not apply, but qualifying dependents may be entitled to fatal claim benefits under Section 307. … [J-88-2024] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 8 limited; it applies regardless of the claimant’s cause of death and regardless of whether the claimant had any qualifying dependents.

Tyler v. King

344 Pa. Super. 78 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1985

However, this generalization as applied to the case sub judice does not find support in the cases cited by the majority. [1] *98 Recent case law clearly establishes that the word "shall" in a statute is to be construed as … This clearly does not hold true in the case sub judice.

Bast & Others' Appeal

70 Pa. 301 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1872

A careful consideration of the master’s report, and the exceptions thereto, present very clearly, we think, a case wherein one partner, the defendant’s testator, if he meant what they claim he did, attempted to realize profits … In the absence of qualifying testimony that he was to bid for a particular member of the firm, the presumption would undoubtedly be that he acted for the firm, and not for one of its members.

Commonwealth v. Lawson

548 Pa. 588 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1997

The Superior Court aptly noted this important distinction as follows: The record establishes the Cumberland County District Attorney appointed Deputy Attorney General Shawn C. … Here, Wagner is clearly capable to practice law and the Salary Board of Cumberland County approved his appointment.

Commonwealth v. Edwards

380 Pa. 52 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1955

been drinking a quantity of liquor and beer for a period of time, but the latest period of time related by any of the witnesses' was soméwhere around midnight of August 30th and 31st, whereas the Commonwealth seems to have established … The statement was clearly qualified for admission in evidence under the res gestae rule.

Clark v. Essex Wire Corp.

361 Pa. 60 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1948

The plaintiff was endeavoring to establish his contention that he never agreed to a change in the arrangements as to his salary which would involve the loss of substantial commissions already earned. … The evidence whose admissibility thé defendant challenges is clearly relevant to the issue: did defendant waive what plaintiff claimed he waived, to wit, commissions on sales made by the plaintiff before November 1, 1941,

Reese v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform

173 A.3d 1143 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2017

PFUR then sets about trying to establish that these conditions are not met in the present appeal. PFUR’s Brief at 12. … The List qualifies as a "record” under the RTKL: "Record."

Commonwealth v. Hackett

534 Pa. 210 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1993

These uncontradicted and corroborated facts, as a matter of law, established that Carter was not an accomplice. … Thus, the record clearly reflects, as the trial court judge found, that a contract to kill existed for purposes of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(2).