Case law

Laird v. Department of Public Welfare

611 Pa. 138 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2011

. §§ 771-774, despite their satisfaction of requirements established in 55 Pa.Code § 3140.202, because the adoptions were procured through a private agency. 5 In April 1999, however, Attorney Gutterman successfully argued … To that end, the ALJs each determined that the children, as African-Americans, were qualified under 55 Pa.Code § 3140.202(b)(4)(iii), and thus were eligible to receive subsidies.

Glenn Hawbaker, Inc. v. PennDOT, Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2023

[PennDOT] shall not consider from any bidder who is not qualified. … Cmwlth. 1989) (holding that irreparable harm requirement for preliminary injunctive relief was met where sovereign immunity precluded recovery of damages for lost profits)).

National Biscuit Co. v. Philadelphia

374 Pa. 604 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1953

Pittsburgh, 360 Pa. 240, 244 , 61 A. 2d 878, 880 , that ‘Clearly the imposition of this nominal charge was not intended to be an excise tax for the privilege of selling cigarettes.’ … The Act of 1921, as amended, imposes a fee of $19 for individual insurance brokers and $25 for licenses in the name of a copartnership or corporation, including individual licenses for any duly qualified individuals without

Quigley, C. v. UCBR, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2021

[J-1-2021] - 2  such, the Claimant’s business qualifies as a sideline business and benefits are allowed under [Section 802(h)] of the [UC] Law. … Clearly Claimant, as the sole party in the appeal (given the Department’s nonparticipation), did not approve of having the issue of her eligibility revisited by the Board.

Commonwealth v. Sullivan

472 Pa. 129 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1977

An individual grand juror may be challenged on the ground that he is not legally qualified or that a state of mind exists on his part which may prevent him from acting impartially. … Moreover, this opinion or comment was required to be fairly or temperately stated, clearly leaving the jury free to reach its independent conclusion. Commonwealth v.

Panyko v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

585 Pa. 310 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2005

Based on this limited definition, our courts found that only physical injuries qualified as compensable injuries under the Act. See, e.g., University of Pittsburgh v. Workmen’s Comp. … Smith, 575 Pa. 203 , 836 A.2d 5, 17 (2003) (although an unexplained per curiam reversal establishes the law of the case, "by definition it establishes no precedent beyond the authority cited in the order.”)

Commonwealth v. Walters, P., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2024

Ross’ testimony was qualified in a manner similar to the testimony in Passmore. Id. at 16. … Ross’ determination that the manner of death was homicide, it did not establish that she was strangled.

Commonwealth v. Stewart

338 Pa. 9 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 1940

This clearly appears from the fact that the market value of the res is almost twice that of the assessed value of appellee’s interest therein *19 as determined by herself on the basis of her age and consequent life expectancy … S. 559 ), where the equitable life interest of a Maryland beneficiary of a trust fund of intangibles in Pennsylvania was held to be immune from taxation in Maryland.

In the Interest of F.B.

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. Davido

582 Pa. 52 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2005

Lastly, when directly asked by the trial court whether he wanted to proceed pro se on the first day of trial, Appellant clearly indicated that he did not want to represent himself. … We further find that the evidence was sufficient to establish the aggravating factor found by the jury. Id.

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Co. v. Black

591 Pa. 221 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2007

providing, inter alia, bodily injury liability coverage with a limit of $100,000 per accident and underinsured motorist cov *227 erage with a limit of $100,000 per accident. 4 As previously noted, under the policy, Eric qualified … Accordingly, the terms of the policy clearly limit total recovery under these facts to $100,000.

Schriver v. Meyer

19 Pa. 87 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1852

It is setting aside the old doctrine and establishing a new one. … As I understand this doctrine, it is tersely expressed in the maxim, minime sunt mutanda quce inter pretationem certam semper habuerunt; and is well qualified by that other one, quce contra rationem juris introducta sunt,

Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, J., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2026

Caruso’s opinion on manner of death failed to meet the criteria for the admission of expert testimony, that was “clearly the case here.” 86 The jury would have to decide manner of death on its own. … That did not mean that no other professional can be qualified to make that determination.

Commonwealth v. Kalck

239 Pa. 533 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1913

The intention not to repeal acts prescribing penalties and punishments clearly appears in the title and all through the enacting clauses of the Acts of 1909 and 1911. … executive department, calling attention to the legislative policy that when a man’s so-called minimum sentence is about to expire, the question of grace- and mercy ought to be considered and the propriety of granting a qualified

Duross Will

395 Pa. 492 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1959

Roche, who is another eminently qualified psychiatrist, never saw Margaret Duross. However, he testified that based upon the testimony of Dr, Pokrass, Mrs. … In a will contest the opinions of witnesses, lay or ex *507 pert, are of little value when confronted by established facts: Draper’s Est., 215 Pa. 314 ; Kane’s Est., 206 Pa. 204 . ... it clearly appears that testator’s mind

Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.

628 Pa. 296 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2014

Categorical exemptions from liability exist (following the dismantling by this Court of judicial immunities in the 1960s and 1970s) only where the General Assembly has acted to create explicit policy-based immunities, e.g … Where either no immunity exists, or the legislative branch created exceptions to an immunity legislatively conferred, the default general rule of possible liability operates.

Commonwealth v. Johnson

383 Pa. Super. 356 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 1989

The letter of agreement provided that no Federal or state laws would be violated in the course of Judge Cunningham's cooperation, and explicitly stated that no immunity from state prosecution or other disciplinary proceedings … Just as clearly these circumstances could lead reasonable individuals to question her impartiality.

Cooke v. Neilson

1 Brightly 463 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1849

It is clearly established that in a tenancy from year to year, (and the same rule is of course applicable to the tenancy in this case, mutatis mutandis,) the landlord, in order to determine the tenancy, must give notice of … But it should be of the most clear and unequivocal character, to establish a general custom, differing from the common law.

Sharpless v. Mayor of Philadelphia

21 Pa. 147 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 1853

It is plain that the force of these general words, if there had been nothing elsewhere to qualify them, would have given to the Assembly an unlimited power to make all such laws as they might think proper. … When we come home and look into the precedents established by this Court, we find them uniformly and distinctly denying the right to go beyond the constitution. In Norris v.

Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance

605 Pa. 590 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2010

Specifically, he maintains that disability benefits paid for by an insured, and/or earned through his employment, are fundamentally different from benefits under the MVFRL and do not raise the specter of double recovery or qualify … We recognize, as Appellee stresses, that the Legislature has clearly denominated group/program/arrangement benefits as excess. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1719(a).