Case law

Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney-General v. Pittsburg & Connellsville Railroad

58 Pa. 26 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1868

The courts will maintain and enforce all her rights against her own corporation without regard to any immunities she may claim to possess beyond her territories and within the jurisdiction of another state. … The design clearly evinced to do an unlawful act may justify the interposition of a court of equity by a process of injunction, but it would be unjust before the act was consummated to visit the corporate body itself with

Erie City v. Public Service Commission

278 Pa. 512 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1924

No attack was made on the competency, sufficiency or credibility of the witnesses to establish the fact of general market value. The commission must in some measure be controlled by the evidence before it. … No dividends were declared; there was no evidence of net profits, and for this reason alone the commission was *536 clearly right in declining to consider profits from the sale of gasoline in reducing the rate to be fixed

Alberici v. Tinari

374 Pa. Super. 20 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 1988

Alberici that his trial counsel, Nino Tinari, Esquire, received a grant of immunity to testify as a witness before the Grand Jury in an unrelated criminal investigation. Alberici continued to have Mr. … The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of collateral estoppel and stated at 38 Pa.D. & C.3d 433: Plaintiff, against whom the doctrine of collateral estoppel is asserted, was clearly a party

Groda v. American Stores Company

315 Pa. 484 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 1934

Kirkpatrick, 3 Wr. 288, we held that to entitle plaintiff to recover in an action for malicious prosecution, “it must clearly appear that the prosecution was groundless.” … Reeves (a Canadian case), 1918, 2 West Weekly 442, 446, it is well said: “The basis upon which the taking of legal advice affords protection is, that a person who has qualified himself to act as counsel, or to be enrolled

Aiken Industries, Inc. v. Estate of Wilson

477 Pa. 34 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1978

For this purpose, this Court clearly need not give deference to the *47 legal conclusions of the chancellor. See Snow v. Corsica Constr. Co., Inc., 459 Pa. 528 , 329 A.2d 887 (1974); Field v. … Clearly, the gift of money from Wilson to Délo and Zebrovious, honoring a previous employment commitment, does not qualify as being “connected with ownership, management, operation or control” of Compacting.

Commonwealth v. Oellers

140 Pa. 457 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1891

As already shown, these were and are, before the constitution of 1874 and since, established, defined and regulated by the acts of 1854 and 1885. … Section 7 provides, in case of a vacancy in the office of mayor, that councils shall forthwith, in joint meeting, elect viva voce a qualified person to serve, etc.

Commonwealth v. Travaglia

611 Pa. 481 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2011

The trial court’s *505 instructions clearly directed the jury that it could not consider evidence of the murder of William Nichols as an aggravating circumstance, and it is well established that a jury is presumed to follow … The Court was clearly not making a finding that the facts surrounding a prior conviction were admissible in instances where that prior conviction did not qualify as an aggravating circumstance.”

Commonwealth v. Castro

625 Pa. 582 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2014

While the requirements the proposed evidence must meet are clearly delineated, neither Rule 720 nor its comment address what sort of information qualifies as evidence, nor do they discuss what is needed in terms of an offer … Appellee needed to do more than present an article “pointing to” allegations that if true have the potential to aid his cause; he needed to clearly articulate in his motion what evidence he would present to meet the test.

Girard Investment Co. v. Bello

456 Pa. 220 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1974

Justice Pomeroy: The majority opinion represents a marked departure from established precedent in the area of restrictive covenants. I respectfully dissent. … As I have noted above, the record clearly shows Girard’s need for the protection provided by the covenant.

O'CONNELL v. Roefaro

391 Pa. 52 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 1958

This was., very, .clearly .pointed. out to the *64 jury along with some of the factors which they could, if they so desired, utilize in arriving at their decision. . . … The record clearly refutes this contention. The deceased was a healthy young man Avho was very ambitious.

Amadio v. Levin

509 Pa. 199 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1985

Our prior concern that such actions create difficulties in establishing proof, upon closer examination, must also give way. … Clearly, this is not the result of our decision today and the dissent does not explain what this imaginary double recovery is.

Slippery Rock Area School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

603 Pa. 374 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2009

Clearly the legislature would not authorize agencies to adopt binding regulations inconsistent with the applicable enabling statutes. … Further, although the legislature expressly qualified “capacity,” it did not qualify “services” to indicate that offering any services at any wages, benefits, or hours would be sufficient to meet the School District’s burden

Messmore's Estate

290 Pa. 107 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1927

This document described the coal' land held in trust, amounting, if the tract was divided, to about 169 acres, and directed that her executors (only one qualified ) should have entire control thereof “for a period of five … It is also suggested that the court is without jurisdiction to surcharge with the proceeds of the sale of this land, and that the right to recover must first be established in the common pleas after issue granted to pass

In Re Estate of Pyle

391 Pa. Super. 244 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1990

In this cáse, the bequest given would seem to qualify as a charitable deduction, which would benefit the estate by decreasing the amount of estate tax due. … Because the will is clearly not ambiguous, we can see no reason to discard the “four corners rule” reaffirmed by this court in McKenna.

In Re Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice

605 Pa. 224 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2010

The JCB also requested that the Court establish guidelines and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of information in the JCB’s possession. … Moreover, the ICJJ clearly does not pose the radical reinterpretation of Article V, Section 18(a)(8) that is the centerpiece of the CO/DO.

Boyle v. Boyle

152 Pa. 108 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1893

He says, “ any remainder at her decease,” thus clearly indicating his idea that, there might be nothing at all left to go to any one ; but if anything should remain of the estate so given to his wife he ex- . presses a wish … Glunt, 111 Pa. 287 , the testator followed the words of gift with words that were strongly precatory and it was contended that they qualified the gift.

Gillard v. AIG Insurance

609 Pa. 65 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2011

The lawyers who regularly serve the Energy Association’s members, especially the counsel who are full-time employees, are exposed to a continuous stream of client communications (many of which are clearly confidential client … Such approach is consistent with logic and established principles of statutory construction.

Solar Electric Company's Appeal

290 Pa. 156 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1927

borough shall construct an electric plant, or purchase the property of any...... electric light companythe question of the increase of the debt of such borough, for any of such purposes, shall first be submitted to the qualified … The language of the act should be clear and unmistakable, and questions of doubt should be resolved against the existence of this right......unless the right clearly appears it should be denied,”—where can it be said that

Cooper v. Schoffstall

588 Pa. 505 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2006

D. & C.4th 221, 223 (2001) ("Clearly such discovery [of financial information regarding an opposing party’s expert witness] would not be permitted absent an order of court for 'cause shown' pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5(a) … While adherence to the general standard pertaining to discovery certainly cannot be sufficient to establish additional “cause shown” under Rule 4003.5, we agree with Dr.

Driscoll v. Corbett

620 Pa. 494 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2013

Clearly, then, there is substantial tension between the pronouncements of these two cases. While Gondelman is the more recent of these two, this Court has most recently repeated Stander’s assertion. … Such a revision to the organic law of the Commonwealth will only be deemed to violate the constitution that it amends (if at all) where the challenger has shown — clearly, palpably, and plainly — that the amendment is so