Case law

Upper Southampton Township. v. Upper Southampton Township Zoning Hearing Board

594 Pa. 58 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2007

Instead, the court found that “a new use, belonging to and operated by a new and different entity ... will be established on land already owned, occupied and used by another.” Trial Ct. Op. at 11. … The MPC, when viewed as a whole, clearly is intended to apply to the allocation of land in such a way that issues related to public use, water management, sewers, streets and the like must be addressed.

Pieper v. Ametek-Thermox Instruments Division

526 Pa. 25 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 1990

The question before us is whether the Commonwealth Court committed an error of law by requiring Appellant to establish a “causal connection” between his prior work-related injury and his present disability in order to qualify … only required, as he did, to establish that his disability “continued”.

Commonwealth v. Blystone

555 Pa. 565 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1999

The court noted that “[a] review of the testimony of these jurors clearly shows that their exclusion for cause was proper.” Id. at 64. … Appellant has failed to present credible evidence to establish that he suffered from any mental infirmities at the time of the murder.

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

Beasley v. Beasley

359 Pa. Super. 20 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1986

The issues are clearly stated, but prior to analysis of the legal issues, a brief discussion of the facts is warranted. James and Helen Beasley were married in 1958, at which time Mr. … The context most cited is that of a corporation or business entity in which it can be clearly calculated that there is an excess value beyond the fair return of compensation for work performed.

Kurtz v. Erie

389 Pa. 557 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 1957

(Emphasis supplied) An examination of that portion of the statute which antedated the 3951 amendment clearly reveals the legislative intent. … That -tills portion of tbe statute clearly envisages coverage only for temporary incapacity is well established: first, it is expressly stated in the statutory language; second, tbe provisions requiring *564 that the employee

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Schnader v. Liveright

308 Pa. 35 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1927

Such legislation must be clearly relevant for that purpose. … The fact that their numbers are swollen through unemployment does not change the established concept of poor persons.

Wilkinson v. Pittsburgh Farmers & Mechanics' Turnpike Co.

6 Pa. 398 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1847

It is conceded, that if the rule established in Steele v. … This is attempted here; but on the authority of adjudged cases, we are clearly of opinion, that he should not be allowed to succeed.

Commonwealth v. Mitchell

497 Pa. 14 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1981

Involuntariness of a guilty plea would clearly qualify as a situation in which the granting of relief would be necessary to correct a “manifest injustice.” Commonwealth v. Rosmon, supra. … Clearly jeopardy had not attached, the issue of double jeopardy was not of arguable merit and, therefore, counsel was not ineffective.

Clean Air Council, Aplts v. DEP and Sunoco

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2023

If the legislature intended to qualify that discretion, it could have done so. … Even in Solebury, the Court did not reverse the Board’s decision based upon the standard it chose – the Board clearly had discretion to utilize a standard it saw fit.

Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Blanc

396 Pa. 448 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 1959

The record clearly indicates that the managers of the two theatres would not have exhibited the film if the District Attorney had not agreed that there would be no interference with the showing at that time. *455 As stated … There, the plaintiff, who leased juke boxes to various establishments, sought to enjoin the enforcement of a city ordinance regulating the licensing of establishments having possession of such juke boxes.

Phillips v. Schoenberger

369 Pa. Super. 52 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1987

When it is apparent that the jury has returned a verdict excessive in amount and clearly beyond what the evidence warrants, the trial court should set aside or reduce the verdict. Jones v. … If a witness has any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on the subject under investigation he or she is qualified as an expert. Kravinsky v. Glover, 263 Pa.Super. 8, 20 , 396 A.2d 1349, 1355 (1979). *64 Dr.

Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

386 Pa. 117 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1956

The opinion concluded with the words that “though others filling purely legislative offices may be without the constitutional provision as to removal, [a constitutional officer] is clearly within it.” … appointed members of the commission shall continue in office for terms of four, six, eight and ten years, respectively, from the dates of their appointment and until their respective successors shall be duly appointed and qualified

Commonwealth v. Louden

536 Pa. 180 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1994

Only the attorneys for the defendant and for the Commonwealth, persons necessary to operate the equipment, a qualified shorthand reporter and any person whose presence would contribute to the welfare and well-being of the … Such a constitutional right could not be more clearly enunciated.

Clearfield Bituminous Coal Corp. v. Thomas

336 Pa. 572 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1939

Even if the timber is harvested after the landowner has enjoyed a long period of immunity from taxation, only a tax amounting to 10% of the value of the “harvest” is imposed. … If the Act in question is not a tax exemption statute (which it clearly is), and if it should be regarded as a statute classifying property for purposes of taxation, it would still have to be adjudged unconstitutional as

Insurance Co. of North America v. Hippert

354 Pa. Super. 333 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 1986

name as an insured in any other contract of basic restoration insurance complying with this act; and (ii) in a residence in the same household with a named insured. 12 As such, there can be no doubt that Michael Hippert qualifies … Section 301(a)(1) of the Act, in pertinent part, clearly provides for the burden to fall on Judith: *340 An owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident remains liable if, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was

Gerhart, S. v. DEP, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2023

If the legislature intended to qualify that discretion, it could have done so. … Even in Solebury, the Court did not reverse the Board’s decision based upon the standard it chose – the Board clearly had discretion to utilize a standard it saw fit.

County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth

517 Pa. 65 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 1987

Further, the County is required to establish and maintain a judicial and related account. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 3541. … For the foregoing reasons we hold that the statutory scheme for county funding of the judicial system is in *76 conflict with the intent clearly expressed in the constitution that the judicial system be unified.

Williams, L., Aplts v. City of Phila

188 A.3d 421 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2018

Id. at 575, 577 , 274 A.2d at 527 , 529 . 12 Notably as well, in the tax immunity setting, federal courts have been resolutely instructed to avoid the "venturesome" and "daunting" inquiry into economic incidence. … VIII, § 2 (b)(2) (authorizing the Legislature to establish a special class or classes of "subjects of taxation" for exemption purposes).

Commonwealth v. Wholaver

605 Pa. 325 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2010

Whether the president judge’s placing limits on the funds available for hiring defense experts and investigators denied appellant qualified experts and an adequate investigation. 2. … In holding such testimony bore sufficient indicia of reliability 15 to be admissible, the Court noted: Counsel’s questioning clearly partook of cross-examination as a matter of form.