Case law

Fredericks v. Atlantic Refining Co.

282 Pa. 8 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1924

Flanagan, 277 Pa. 145, 148 , where direct evidence as to the fire’s commencement is present, the causal connection through defendant’s negligence is established, and if other independent causes did exist they would not relieve … We are of the opinion that the record presents no reversible error; the questions therein presented were clearly for the jury, whose judgment must be accepted as final in the determination of the case.

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.

Bold Corp. v. County of Lancaster

569 Pa. 107 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2002

Clearly, the trial court made a credibility determination as to this issue which the Commonwealth Court simply ignored. … Nor have we quantified and/or qualified the evidence necessary to render a proper benefit and burdens analysis.

Sunbeam Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

566 Pa. 494 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2001

A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only in a case that clearly and without a doubt fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. … Oct. 31, 1985)] established that the pollution exclusion is not ambiguous and must be accorded its plain meaning.

Commonwealth v. Lobiondo

501 Pa. 599 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1983

In determining whether a person's actions constitute criminal negligence one must obviously consider the entire situation; and we hold that the determination whether those actions qualify as a "gross deviation" within the … These facts clearly constitute "a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation." 18 Pa.C.S. § 302(b)(4).

Pennsylvania State EduCation Ass'n ex rel. Wilson v. Commonwealth, Department of Community & Economic Development

637 Pa. 337 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2016

At the outset, we observed that public school employees clearly have colorable interests in protecting their home address information from disclosure under the RTKL. Id. at 1274-75. … According to Warren and Bran-déis, all citizens (as persons, unrelated to any subjective expectations) have the “right to immunity of the person,” the “right to be let alone,” and the “right to one’s personality.”

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Bagnoni v. Klemm

499 Pa. 566 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1982

Court has applied the common law rule more rigorously: ‘[T]he great weight of authority holds that where a statute provides for a vote of “a majority of the voters”, “a majority of the legal voters,” “a majority of the qualified … voters”, etc., all that is required is a majority of those actually voting, unless a contrary legislative intention and purpose is very clearly expressed.’

Donegal Mutual Insurance v. Long

387 Pa. Super. 574 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1989

The legislative history of this provision establishes that Section 1724 was enacted primarily to prohibit rental car agencies from excluding in their rental agreements coverage for liability arising from the intoxication … We quote the relevant portions once more: Lessor provides liability coverage for Customer and any authorized and qualified operators described herein and no others in accordance with the standard provisions of a Basic Automobile

Commonwealth v. Robinson

581 Pa. 154 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2004

The above-recited facts presented at Appellant’s trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, clearly establish the sufficiency of the first-degree murder conviction in relation to the Fortney homicide. … Instantly, as admitted by Appellant, images of Burghardt and Schmoyer were clearly relevant to establish the aggravating circumstance of “torture.”

Soloski v. Hetrick

396 Pa. Super. 140 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1990

The Ashley Court found that the facts established that the husband-appellee had made a valid inter-vivos gift of the shares of stock in corporation # 1. … Clearly, the purpose of § 607’s requirements is to protect the purchaser of corporate stock, and to fully inform that purchaser of certain information deemed pertinent by the legislature.

Walsh v. TATE

444 Pa. 229 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1971

Solicitor’s opinion the City maintained that Walsh’s personnel changes violated the Home Rule Charter which prohibits the dismissal of city employees until they have had a reasonable opportunity to take and pass a civil service qualifying … Instead of spelling out clearly in Section 16 (y) an intent to bring the office of the Register of Wills within the Local Government provisions, however, the authors of Section 16 (y) did just the opposite, choosing to continue

Harrisburg School District v. Zogby

574 Pa. 121 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2003

For this reason, the qualifying language was commonly referred to as the “Reed Amendment” after Harrisburg’s mayor, the Honorable Stephen R. Reed. … A statute duly enacted by the General Assembly is presumed valid and will not be declared unconstitutional unless it “clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution.” Purple Orchid, Inc. v.

Commonwealth v. Saranchak

564 Pa. 250 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2001

Furthermore, because the averments in the present application clearly do not otherwise warrant reargument, I would deny the Federal Defender’s application. … Among other things, AEDPA established a one-year filing deadline for federal habeas petitions.

Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy v. Cohen

448 Pa. 189 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1972

The Supreme Court of the United States has firmly established that “[a] State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner that contravenes the Due Process . . . … The Superior Court dismissed the attack on the grounds of vagueness and concluded that appellant’s conduct was clearly covered by the statute.

In re Anonymous No. 65 D.B. 89

11 Pa. D. & C.4th 253 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1990

“(c) Tort immunity — standard defense. … (N.T. 139-40.) (16) Respondent further advised [A] during his initial consultation there would be difficulty establishing legal causation between the city and a leak in his home due to the proximity of the work to his home

Bowman v. Gum, Inc.

327 Pa. 403 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1937

The contention of the defendants in this regard is without merit, because the amendments are well within and germane to the purposes for which we remitted the record, as clearly appears from the opinion of Mr. … Such a contract has not been established in the present case.

Commonwealth v. Messinger

1 Binn. 273 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1808

The rule is introduced to guard against a false statement of the facts contained in a written paper, and presupposes the possession of the paper clearly in the adverse party. … This was an action of debt for a penalty under the statute, for killing game> The defendant pleaded the general issue, and relied that he was qualified by estate to kill game.

Rutt v. Bethlehems' Globe Publishing Co.

335 Pa. Super. 163 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1984

However, the Matus court clearly signalled its conviction that the standard applied by the trial court below represented a proper — indeed, a generous — accommodation, in such cases, of the interests of news media on the … Once the defendant has established the existence of a common law or qualified privilege, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish an abuse of privilege by the defendant in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8343(a)(7).

Hasselrode v. Gnagey

404 Pa. 549 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1961

Musmanno: The purpose of law is to achieve justice; the purpose of language is to convey the meaning of the persons using it; the purpose of the courts is to plumb the depths of reality and on the unbudgeable foundation of established … There was no- intention on the part of either of these two parties to immunize the Dairy Company from its liabilities.

In Re Nomination Petition of Farnese

609 Pa. 573 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2011

In this matter, Appellants sought to establish pervasive fraud in the circulators’ procurement of signatures on the nomination petition for Appellee. … ’s address is correct; (3) the signer resides in the county in the *577 affidavit; (4) the signer signed the petition on the date set forth; and (5) to the best of the circulator's knowledge and belief, the signer was a qualified