Case law

McCrady Case

399 Pa. 586 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 1960

In the determination of this issue certain well-established principles of law must be kept in mind. First, as stated by Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Jones in Koontz v. … Reading, 310 Pa. 493 , 165 A. 398 , relied upon by the Commonwealth, was clearly a valid exercise of the police power and not of the power of eminent domain and is presently inapposite.

Commonwealth ex rel. Fletcher v. Cavell

395 Pa. 134 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1959

The test should be whether or not the juror is really qualified, not when it is learned that he is disqualified. … Justice Black said that on a habeas corpus a judgment cannot be set aside, “however clearly we may perceive it to be erroneous.”

Kuntz's Estate

230 Pa. 557 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1911

Appellant clearly acted within his legal rights in asking these paragraphs to be éxpunged from the record, and we think it was error to refuse this request. … The questions of mental capacity and undue influence having been determined in favor of the proponents of the will its validity was established and certainly all parties are interested in an early accounting.

William Penn School District v. Pennsylvania Department of Education

170 A.3d 414 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2017

They also contend that, because Plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction compelling a new public education framework, their suit is barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See id. at 39-41. … This Court found that the Education Clause saved the statute because the Clause embodies the concept that public-school teacher contracts are impliedly qualified by the possibility of future legislative modification.

Brunda v. Home Insurance

353 Pa. Super. 146 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1986

Kathleen Cunningham, who had been employed as a school teacher prior to her death on January 26, 1979, was clearly included in the class described in Nye. … Thus, a plaintiff, such as Brunda, who is without a viable cause of action because she has failed to assert her claim in a timely fashion, cannot qualify as a class representative. Wiltshire v.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Domtar Paper Co.

631 Pa. 463 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2015

The record establishes that on December 13, 2009, George Lawrence (“Lawrence”), while in the employment of Schneider National Inc. … Appellees contend that Section 303(b) clearly places the right to bring a third-party suit in the injured employee and not the employer/insurer.

Ebbert v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

330 Pa. 257 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1937

The rule of the nonliability of vendors in “original package” cases is firmly established in the law. … Appellant contends that “under this guarantee there was only one obligation upon the defendant and that was [a qualified] obligation to replace defective parts.”

Commonwealth v. Hill, B., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2020

act of DUI, and if so, whether the claim has merit.1 We conclude that Appellant’s double jeopardy claim, solely as it relates to his second sentence for DUI, implicates the legality of his sentence, rendering the claim immune … In particular, he maintains that the mere fact of a conviction alone qualifies as punishment for constitutional purposes under Ball v.

American Airlines, Inc. v. Commonwealth

542 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 1995

whether food, non-alcoholic beverages and related non-food supplies furnished by appellees to passengers and crew members during commercial flights are “directly used” in the supply of a public utility service, thereby qualifying … Our reading of the statute fails to indicate that the guidelines are so clearly erroneous.

Working Families Party, Aplts. v. Com.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2019

WFP and Rabb, as well as two qualified electors, sought declaratory relief on the basis that the anti-fusion provisions, as qualified by our ruling in Magazzu, violated the Free and Equal Elections Clause, the Equal Protection … In my view, Winston and LWV establish that the Free and Equal Elections Clause incorporates and protects other constitutional values naturally implicated by election regulations.

Commonwealth v. Richardson

476 Pa. 571 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1978

In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors … During this time the subtle emotions of hate for the appellant, or pity for the father of the deceased could clearly develop, even assuming the father said nothing about the case.

Commonwealth v. Shade

545 Pa. 347 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1996

The trial court clearly decided that Appellant should be accorded the benefit of such a change and held that Defendant is clearly entitled to the benefit of the above rulings [i.e., Jarman, Modaffare, and Osborne ] because … This standard clearly does not permit a trial court to consider prejudice to the Commonwealth in deciding such a motion.

Donegal Mutual Insurance v. Baumhammers

595 Pa. 147 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2007

However, we have established that the term "accident" within insurance polices refers to an unexpected and undesirable event occurring unintentionally, and that the key term in the definition of the "accident" is "unexpected … The policy clearly provides, "This limit is the same regardless of the number of `insureds,' claims made[,] or persons injured."

Wilson v. Wernwag

217 Pa. 82 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1907

The plaintiff sold fifty machines or more in several places and, therefore, qualified himself for the agency. … It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the profits which he probably could have made; and as showing such profits he could prove that subsequent to the repudiation of the agreement, the defendant established

Krider v. Lafferty

1 Whart. 303 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1836

It will not do then, to say that they were forced by the decision of the Court, to call Lentz as their witness, because it was clearly at their option to do so or not as they pleased. … If the receipt was a misrepresentation of the matters set forth in it, no one could know it better than Lentz; and therefore as regarded knowledge on the subject, no body could be better qualified to testify: And even if

COM., DEPT. OF GENERAL SERVICES v. US Mineral Products Co.

598 Pa. 331 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2008

James Melius, an epidemiologist, who indicated, inter alia, that PCBs are carcinogens and have other known adverse health effects, including liver damage, immune system damage, and neurological effects on developing children … In this regard, Appellants stress that the trial court admitted the evidence for limited purposes, clearly ruling that it could not be used to prove negligence on their part.

COM., PENN. STATE POLICE v. Com.

512 Pa. 534 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1986

Suffice it to say that in this type of case it is improper to require any party to establish that the hiring would not have occurred absent the discrimination. … The Act guarantees that persons who are denied positions because of discriminatory practices must be given those positions if they are the best qualified.

Hilkmann v. Hilkmann

579 Pa. 563 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2004

The Supreme Court shall establish a uniform citation for this purpose. A copy of the petition shall be attached. … Tremblay, 223 U.S. 185, 190 , 32 S.Ct. 309, 310 , 56 L.Ed. 398 (1912) ("No such right, privilege, or immunity, however, is conferred by the Constitution or by any statute of the United States in respect to the judgments of

Appeal of Hartranft

85 Pa. 433 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 1877

This is clearly set out in the answer, by the Attorney-General, to the application for the attachment, and there has been no denial thereof upon the argument before us. … The state is not without a head, for the 18th sect, of the 4th art. of the constitution provides : “in case of the death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation, or other disability of the Governor, the

Commonwealth v. Lopinson

427 Pa. 284 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1967

His testimony as to Lopinson’s statements under these circumstances, even in the absence of a warning of constitutional rights, was clearly admissible. See Miranda v. Arizona, supra; Commonwealth v. … In rebuttal, the Commonwealth called witnesses who were asked, after being qualified: “Among the people who knew him what was his reputation for truthfulness?”