Case law

Commonwealth v. Kerchner

478 Pa. 349 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1978

The prosecution established through the testimony of a qualified pathologist and a pediatrician that the child had suffered multiple traumatic injuries consisting of a laceration behind the head, multiple bruises on the abdomen … This is not controlling, however, since the medical evidence, offered by the Commonwealth, clearly establishes repeated and severe blows to the infant as being the origin of the factors causing death.

Commonwealth v. Davis

394 Pa. Super. 591 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1990

Viola, established that the child was terrified of appellant and knew that other adults in her life were also afraid of him. … The record reveals that this statement clearly qualifies under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See, Commonwealth v. Ehrsam, 355 Pa.Super. 40 , 512 A.2d 1199 (1986).

Commonwealth v. National Biscuit Co.

390 Pa. 642 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 11, 1957

The reasoning and principles established in upholding the Pittsburgh mercantile tax in the Federal Drug Company case were equally applicable and decisive of the validity of the Philadelphia mercantile tax. … This is clearly a misinterpretation of the ruling. In that case a local tax assessment was held to be invalid because it was a tax on United States securities.

Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Ceja

493 Pa. 588 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 1981

Nothing in the record indicates that he had any first-hand knowledge of the incidents described in the documents, nor was there any attempt to establish him either as the custodian of the documents or in any way qualified … Whether or not the adverse party asserts such a challenge, some foundation for the reliability of hearsay must be established, unless apparent on its face.

Commonwealth v. Payne

540 Pa. 54 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1994

The so-called informant was now clearly a witness to the crime as well. This transaction took place on May 11, 1990, but the Appellant was not arrested until December 10 of that year. … analyzed the trial court's responsibility to weigh other relevant factors before considering whether to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. *61 This Court has repeatedly acknowledged that the Commonwealth has a qualified

Commonwealth v. Mockaitis

575 Pa. 5 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2003

The statute defines a qualifying “repeat intoxicated driver law” (i.e., a state law which will be adequate to avoid diversion of federal highway funds) as one which, among other things, requires that a repeat DUI offender … This Court has not hesitated to strike down legislation that clearly violates the separation of powers.

In Re of Fb

555 Pa. 661 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1999

I find it inconceivable to deny that these facts clearly constituted police action. … Other than with respect to a grant of good-faith immunity regarding the strip search, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of the girl’s claims.

Commonwealth v. Brown

605 Pa. 103 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2009

Clearly, if the defense admitted an exhibit, the prosecution must be permitted to question that exhibit on cross-examination. … Moreover, “[t]he trial court is free to use its own expressions as long as the concepts at issue are clearly and accurately presented to the jury.” Id.

Commonwealth v. Johnson

336 Pa. Super. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1984

It is appellant’s contention that Calabrese was qualified as an expert artist, not as an expert in detecting one’s mental condition. … In the absence of an instruction that they did not have to wholly believe Pounds to acquit, the jury may have inferred guilt from his failure to clearly establish his alibi. Id., 490 Pa. at 634 , 417 A.2d at 603.

Commonwealth v. Newman

382 Pa. Super. 220 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1989

The question which Newman sought to ask was clearly calculated to gain insight into the jurors’ present impressions or attitudes, that is, to explore the viability of the defense which he intended to present at trial. … If anything, the evidence was useful to the defense to demonstrate that Newman’s passions were inflamed by watching his girlfriend, Sarah Rhodes, deteriorate from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

In Re General Election Expenses of Shapp

476 Pa. 480 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1978

In granting appellees immunity from public scrutiny of their election campaign financing, the majority ignores the controlling provisions of the Election Code, departs from our case law, and defeats the overriding public … Section 1601(e) of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 3221(e), clearly provides that all election expenses are to be treated the same, whether they are incurred before or after the primary or election.

Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc.

618 Pa. 228 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2012

To illustrate, the statute of limitations and immunity from suit are affirmative defenses. … not establish this proposition.

Commonwealth v. Bell, T., Aplt.

211 A.3d 761 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2019

Thus, the Court held that blood tests do not qualify for categorical exception from the warrant requirement under the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine. … Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution For all of the foregoing, I have relied exclusively upon federal constitutional jurisprudence, which I believe clearly establishes Bell's entitlement to relief in this

Dwight Estate

389 Pa. 520 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1957

Harris could be made until long after the primary trust was established. … Harris’ bequest as secondary although its position clearly indicates that Mrs.

Klein v. EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYS.

521 Pa. 330 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 1989

In this instance, the rate of compensation was established when the judges in question sought election to the office. … Clearly they provide no support for a constitutional argument premised on equal protection.

Downing v. Erie City School District

360 Pa. 29 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1948

The learned chancellor made a supplemental adjudication, embracing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the effect whereof was to establish the following situation. … The Washington County Fire Insurance Company so contends, and it has clearly set forth in its brief the reasoning in support of that contention.

Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal

574 Pa. 724 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2003

He did not file his second PCRA petition until July 3, 2001, clearly beyond the one-year time limit. … “Claims relating to ineffectiveness of counsel for failing to raise certain issues do not qualify due to the specific provision in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(4) that the term ‘government officials’ does not include defense counsel

Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., Inc.

530 Pa. 11 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1992

This Court has stated that although it is impossible to establish precise standards as to the degree of particularity required under this rule, two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirement: (1) the pleadings must … The present case likewise falls clearly within the scope of immunity granted employers under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Ctr. Coalfield Justice v. Wash., Apl. of: RNC/RPP

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2025

They observe, however, that the Court need not reach that question because “due process protections are clearly triggered by the constitutional right to vote and the statutory right to vote by provisional ballot.” Id. … Thus, we conclude the statutory entitlement to vote provisionally plainly establishes a liberty interest.

Ambrose v. Western Maryland Railway Co.

368 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1951

And we think it was clearly established that such inspections were made as carefully as the exigencies of the traffic would permit. … The plaintiff failed to establish that decedent’s death was due to a failure by defendant to.perform.all that was required of it in-this regard. Judgment affirmed. Mr.