Case law

Walsh v. BASF Corporation Apl of: Syngenta

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2020

The balance is struck by requiring the court to rule based solely upon its assessment of the evidence and argument submitted by the parties to establish or contradict such acceptance. … Brautbar’s methods, clearly rendering its own sua sponte judgment with regard to the worth of the studies Dr.

Weeks, J., Aplts. v. DHS

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2019

Speaking generally, to qualify for General Assistance, recipients must be penniless and lack any source of income. These qualifying conditions provide critical context. … As stated by the Court, “here the bill in final form with a title that clearly stated its contents, was presented to each house for its consideration and adoption.

Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis

336 Pa. Super. 22 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1985

In reviewing the denial of Sears' motion for judgment n.o.v., several principles must be kept clearly before us. A judgment n.o.v. may be entered only in a clear case. … While the standard for qualifying a witness as an expert is a liberal one, it remains a well established rule that "[t]he witness must show special knowledge of the very question upon which he promises to express an opinion

Delaware County National Bank v. Campbell

378 Pa. 311 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1954

This was clearly not appealable for the additional reasons set forth in Newport Township School District v. … Where a Board is composed of .able and experienced experts who are dealing with technical questions, a Court should be loath to find a clear abuse of discretion upon' a subject' or subjects as to which-they, are far better-qualified-than

Board of Public Education School District v. Beilan

386 Pa. 82 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1956

If he secures legal immunity from prosecution, the possible impairment of his good name is a penalty which it is reasonable he should be compelled to pay for the common good.” In United States v. … Communism is a world-wide revolutionary movement to overthrow, by force, violence or sabotage, the government of every nation and to establish a Communist dictatorship therein.

Kuznik v. WESTMORELAND COUNTY BD. OF COM'RS

902 A.2d 476 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2006

The Code provides that a majority of qualified electors must approve the adoption of an EVS, pursuant to Section 1104-A, 25 P.S. § 3031.4(a) (Installation of electronic voting systems): (a) If a majority of the qualified … While it is not necessary to establish irreparable or immediate harm in order to meet the criteria for a permanent injunction, it was incumbent on Electors to establish that "greater injury will result from refusing rather

Estate of Rosenberg v. Department of Public Welfare

545 Pa. 27 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1996

The settlor established a trust of $25,000 with the net income to be paid to his mother in quarterly installments. … Some of the evidence referred to is clearly outside the scope of the inquiry permitted when it is necessary to go beyond the four corners of the trust instrument.

Skotnicki, G., Aplt. v. Insurance Department

175 A.3d 239 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2017

Thus, in the Commissioner’s view, Skotnicki failed to establish that collateral estoppel applied to his second appeal. Id. … Administrative Practice and Procedure (“GRAPP”), 1 Pa.Code §§ 31.1-35.251, defines “Adjudication” as an “order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities

Commonwealth v. Veon

637 Pa. 442 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2016

Once we have established the meaning and scope of the statute, we must determine whether the trial court, which enjoys broad discretion in fashioning its jury charge, “clearly, adequately, and accurately” related the law, … Nothing in the statute specified whether the Commonwealth or its agencies could qualify as a “victim.”

Commonwealth v. Smith

374 Pa. 220 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 1953

That was clearly not the situation in the instant case. … But this expression must be qualified, lest it mislead.

Commonwealth v. Queen Coal Co.

445 Pa. 478 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1971

After studying the record, it is my view that the evidence clearly established that the ovens were emitting smoke in violation of Regulation IV, and this, in itself, required the issuance of the injunction requested. 2 The … Hence, on the basis of this reasoning, I feel that the rule of law applied by the lower court was clearly wrong.

Com. v. Olan Mills, Inc. of Ohio

456 Pa. 78 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1974

The issue in this ease, therefore, is not whether the taxpayer qualifies for an exemption, but the more basic question of whether the taxpayer or his property is within the general language of the statute imposing the tax … Justice Eagen pointed out, speaking for the Court in Deitch: “Clearly the historical definition of ‘manufacture’ was read out of the sales tax as inapplicable.

Ruzzi v. Butler Petroleum Co.

527 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1991

No inference from words of general import can establish it." Perry , at page 262, 66 A. 553 . … McChesney and Gene and Harvey Builders , clearly requires that courts give legal effect to the plain meaning of what is written in contracts.

R.W. v. Manzek

585 Pa. 335 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2005

It found, however, that Parents had failed to establish the first, second, and fourth elements. … establish such duty and therefore set forth a cause of action.

Commonwealth v. Culver

2012 Pa. Super. 120 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2012

We ultimately held in Hernandez that the surety’s efforts to secure the defendant’s recapture did not qualify as mitigation if such efforts “did not have any impact on Hernandez’s ultimate capture.” Id. at 239 . … “Although we recognize that the alleged breach in this case is the post-release criminal activity, our law has clearly established that the purpose of bail forfeiture is to encourage bondsmen to act so as to prevent additional

Commonwealth v. Buehl

510 Pa. 363 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1986

This transaction was conducted at close range in a well-lighted business establishment. Mr. … Further, they tended to demonstrate the position of Appellant when the fatal shots were fired, establish the commission of burglary, robbery, and felonious restraint, establish the time of the murders, establish the modus

Commonwealth v. White

557 Pa. 408 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1999

O’Brien’s testimony is clearly supported by the record. Thus, Appellant is not entitled to relief based on this claim. … The record clearly reveals that the expert testimony offered by Dr. O’Brien and Dr.

Coulter Estate

406 Pa. 402 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 1962

domiciliary of the Commonwealth on the basis that Coulter has always maintained his residence in Penn Valley, Pa., had given his Bryn Mawr Avenue residence on his tax returns and that Ms presence in the Delaware rest home did not establish … There is not a scintilla of evidence upon this record that the Bank is not fully and completely qualified to act as guardian; on the contrary, the record indicates that the Bank has had custody of Coulter’s securities, without

In Re Gross

476 Pa. 203 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1978

Whether the qualifying phrase in Section 107, i. e. … The stipulation shows clearly that it was appellant’s own physician, not W.P.I.C., who exacted from appellant the agreement to *217 continue in drug therapy. See note 7 supra.

Commonwealth v. Johnson, H., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2023

Thus, although the relationship evidence in Ulatoski qualified under an exception to the ban on prior bad acts evidence, it was not for the purpose of proving the nature of the relationship itself, but because the nature … Sherwood cited Ulatoski’s reasoning and misinterpreted it as establishing a stand-alone exception for relationship evidence, overlooking that the relationship evidence in Ulatoski clearly fell under the rubric of the lack-of-accident