Case law

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.

Martin v. Ketchum, Inc.

523 Pa. 509 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1990

Subsequently, in Hirschberg, supra, Commonwealth Court held that more than subjective reaction to normal working conditions must be shown to establish a compensable mental disability. … Clearly, we do not set up this kind of requirement in the realm of physical injury.

Commonwealth v. Chilcote

396 Pa. Super. 106 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1990

Our cases establish that unavailability cannot be defined precisely but must be determined according to the facts of each case____ I therefore have no difficulty in finding that the delay from the date of our remand to the … Due process of law insures respect for those personal immunities so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental, or those implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Id.

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.

Commonwealth v. Agoston

364 Pa. 464 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1950

Experienced and qualified police officers know, as do psychologists and theologians, that when a man possesses a guilty secret, he will, if given proper encouragement, disclose it. … Avill be brought into contempt — that discredit Avill even touch the great immunities assured *487 by tbe Fourteenth Amendment — if gossamer possibilities of prejudice to a defendant are to nullify a sentence pronounced by

Jennings v. Insurance

4 Binn. 244 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1811

The jury have established the truth of the plaintiff’s case as stated by him, but leave the legal operation of certain instruments to be decided on by the court. … himself a principal in the bottomry bond expressed in the writing signed by Scott, while at the same time he binds himself to be responsible, his heirs and assigns, till the said payment is fully and completely made, it clearly

Vellon, J., Aplt. v. Dept of Transportation

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2023

The Commonwealth Court agreed with Vellon that Mock and its own precedent “unequivocally establish that the definition of ‘prior offense’ as set forth in Section 3806(a) of the Vehicle Code applies to Section 3806(b) of … The Commonwealth Court in Diveglia held that the second-in-time DUI qualified as a prior offense to the first-in-time DUI.

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. Hanes

361 Pa. Super. 357 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1987

“The theory which underlies these cases is that an owner, by reason of his status as owner, is deemed qualified to give estimates of the value of what he owns.” Commonwealth v. … The conflict in the testimony as to whether appellant was hauling live or dead red oak logs was clearly for the jury to resolve.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Ali, R.

637 Pa. 371 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2016

Relevant to the instant matter, the Crime Victims Act establishes a “victims’ bill of rights,” which provides, inter alia, that crime victims have the right to present victim impact statements at sentencing hearings. 18 P.S … This evidence clearly qualified as victim impact testimony in Malloy’s sentencing hearing and was properly admitted and considered in that case because it showed the devastation caused by Malloy’s decision to drive while

Commonwealth v. Burton

459 Pa. 550 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1974

At the third hearing, she was given immunity and she testified that she heard no plans on the part of appellant or his co-conspirators to blow up a police station. At trial, Mrs. … in this area: "`The proper test to be applied by a trial court in determining the admissibility of photographs in homicide cases is whether or not the photographs are of such essential evidentiary value that their need clearly

Reznor Estate

419 Pa. 188 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1965

The named trustee died on August 7, 1918, and testator’s brother qualified and served as trustee until his death on July 2, 1956. … Both Norvell Estate, 415 Pa. 427 , 203 A. 2d 538 (1964), and Catherwood Trust, supra, clearly, unequivocally and correctly declared and established that the rules promulgated by the Principal and Income Act, supra, did, and

In Re: Adoption of New Rules 4000-4016 and Rescission of Rules 5000.1-5000.13 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2014

(B) Because complete and verbatim notes of testimony and transcripts are integral to the official record of court proceedings, it is the policy of the Unified Judicial System to ensure that (1) qualified … Procedures for waiving or reducing transcripts costs must be published by the court and clearly communicated to litigants. (C) Assignment and allocation of transcript costs (1) Assignment of costs.

Vellon, J., Aplt. v. Dept of Transportation

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2023

The Commonwealth Court agreed with Vellon that Mock and its own precedent “unequivocally establish that the definition of ‘prior offense’ as set forth in Section 3806(a) of the Vehicle Code applies to Section 3806(b) of … The Commonwealth Court in Diveglia held that the second-in-time DUI qualified as a prior offense to the first-in-time DUI.

Commonwealth v. Miller

560 Pa. 500 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2000

Evidence concerning that attack was admitted at appellant’s trial for the kidnapping and murders of victims Franklin and McDuffey in order to establish a common scheme, plan or design. … This isolated comment did not distract from the trial court’s charge which clearly, adequately and accurately presented the law to the jury. Thus, this claim fails.

Matter of Glancey

515 Pa. 201 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1987

A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should himself observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. … It is also true that Article 5, section 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, adopted in 1968, clearly provides that a judge may be removed for misconduct.

J.F. v. Department of Human Services, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2021

DHS observes, unlike the statutory provisions regarding an indicated report which clearly provide for the right to a review or hearing, the CPSL provides no right of appeal for founded reports. Id. at 11. … Cmwlth. 2008) (“[I]f the findings made in the dependency proceeding in this case establish that K.R. abused the minors, it is unnecessary to provide K.R. with a separate administrative hearing to establish that K.R. abused

Commonwealth v. Triplett

462 Pa. 244 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 1975

to answer any question relating to the affairs or government of the City or the conduct of any City officer or employee on the ground that his testimony or answers would tend to incriminate him, or shall refuse to waive immunity … The waiver by the defendant of his right against self-incrimination at trial is clearly one which is unforeseeable by the police during their investigation.

Morris v. Board of Property Assessment

417 Pa. 192 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1965

Under the jurisdictional test established by the majority in the instant case, the amount or value im controversy *199 was $3,100, yet this Court had not the slightest doubt of our jurisdiction. … Whether Morris was qualified was a question for-the sound discretion of the trial Judge and his ruling-will not be reversed by an appellate Court except in the case of clear error: Stevenson v.

Pennsylvania Crime Commission Subpoena

453 Pa. 513 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1973

Thus, whether or not appellants should have been permitted to intervene in this subpoena enforcement proceeding depended upon whether they qualified ás intervenors under Pa. R. C. … .” *520 Clearly, appellants are unable to qualify under subsections (1) through (3). No judgment is entered in a subpoena enforcement action.