Case law

Commonwealth v. O'SEARO

466 Pa. 224 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1976

One of the material elements that the Commonwealth must establish beyond a reasonable doubt for second degree murder is malice. … One of the principal elements that must be established for first degree murder is premeditation.

Gorsline, B. v. Bd. of Sup. of Fairfield Twp

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2018

The Court set forth a test for determining whether an applicant qualifies as a public utility, when the ordinance fails to provide a definition. … The expressed purpose of [J-13-2017] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 10  Although Section 3.1 of the Ordinance states “[i]ndustrial uses are discouraged” in the R-A district, industrial uses are clearly

Villani v. Seibert Appeal of: Seibert

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2017

Article V of our Constitution, “The Judiciary,” establishes the judicial branch of our tri-partite government. … This Court is not only uniquely constitutionally qualified to engage in any such transformative [J-120-2016] [MO: Saylor, C.J.] - 15 process (given our expertise developed as a result of our

Commonwealth v. Raboin, T., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2021

Certainly, if Raboin had asked a clearly misleading question the Commonwealth would cite that. … That cross-examination was clearly misleading.

Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Butz

411 Pa. 360 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 1963

P.L. 131, establishing a Supreme Court and "County Courts of Common Pleas" for Pennsylvania, invested the Supreme Court with all the powers of the Justices of King's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer "at Westminster". … Campbell, 378 Pa. 311, 328 , 106 A. 2d 416 , better qualified than any court to make a factual finding on a subject within their field.

Speck v. Finegold

497 Pa. 77 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1981

Prior to Flagiello hospitals were immune from tort actions brought by patients. … Sortini, 119 Cal.App.3d 690 , 174 Cal.Rptr. 128 (5th Dist. 1981) (Curlender rejected as “unsound under established principles of law and as a sortie into areas of public policy clearly within the competence of the Legislature

PA. HUM. REL. COM. v. Norristown Sch. Dist.

473 Pa. 334 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1977

Order No. 467 does not establish a substantive rule. … Nothing herein is to be interpreted as calling for discrimination in favor of less qualified teachers because of their race. 4.

Commonwealth v. Brown

544 Pa. 406 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1996

The prosecutor established that Morgan was distraught at the time that the statement was given. … The trial judge clearly did not abuse his discretion by allowing Dr. Lieberman to testify as an expert witness.

Mikell v. Philadelphia School District

359 Pa. 113 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1948

To qualify as a bill within the purview of the cited constitutional provision, at least the revenue derived from the tax imposed should be coverable into the treasury of the exacting *118 sovereign for its own general governmental … Plank-Road Company, 22 Pa. 376, 378 , stand is that “the enrolled bill is the conclusive evidence of statutory.enactment and no 'other evidence is admissible to establish that the bill was not lawfully enacted” and then immediately

In re November, 1975 Special Investigating Grand Jury

475 Pa. 123 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1977

I must repeat that good faith establishes no defense to contempt, Pennsylvania v. Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, supra. … This logic in effect immunizes from criminal contempt all contemnors who plan to appeal their sentences.

B.C. v. C.P. & D.B., Aplts

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2024

. § 306, which provides for blood grouping tests to establish paternity, but noting the limitations of the act, such as only the male defendant/putative father could move for the testing). … .] - 3 relevant statutory provision commands that a court order blood tests and appoint “experts qualified as examiners of blood types” who will testify to their findings and be subject to cross-examination.13 Clearly,

Council 13, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees ex rel. Fillman v. Commonwealth

604 Pa. 352 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2009

wage established under this chapter or a maximum work week lower than the maximum workweek established under- this chapter, and no provision of this chapter relating to the employment of child labor shall justify noncompliance … with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a higher standard than the standard established under this chapter.... 29 U.S.C. § 218 (a).

Dougherty, J., Aplt. v. Heller, K.

635 Pa. 507 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2016

Finally, Appellee asserts that Appellant cannot establish that his claimed right will be irreparably lost absent the appeal. … Although the civil procedural rules clearly protect against unreasonable annoyance and embarrassment, see Pa.R.C.P.

In re Anonymous No. 17 D.B. 90

29 Pa. D. & C.4th 124 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 1995

He has essentially been retired since his disbarment. (10)[Petitioner’s] principal sources of income during his disbarment have been retirement accounts established before his disbarment and social security benefits. … These reinstatement cases clearly demonstrate that the misconduct involved therein is comparable to petitioner’s conviction and therefore his conduct is not so egregious as to warrant denial of reinstatement.

Commonwealth v. Savage

388 Pa. Super. 561 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 1989

Appellant has presented a statutory claim under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 111, which provides a qualified renunciation of authority to reprosecute under the “separate sovereigns” doctrine a defendant previously tried for the same crime … But the government controls the precision with which the second offense is charged, the defendant’s own testimony is unlikely to carry much weight, and he is unable to offer his co-defendants immunity for their testimony.

Ashman v. Sharon Steel Corp.

302 Pa. Super. 305 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1982

Whether appellant qualified as an employer under statutory language or under common law will be the first question considered. … Testimony established that the driver controlled the vehicle entirely, but was subject to direction from appellant’s employees while on that property.

Commonwealth v. Brown

455 Pa. 274 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 1974

The sentence prescribed by statute for murder in the second degree is imprisonment for not more than twenty years. [2] The maximum sentence initially imposed clearly falls within the statutory limits. … The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner. See King v. United States, 69 App. D.C. 10, 15 , 98 F.2d 291, 296 .

In Re: Order Rescinding and Replacing Rules 1.1 through 13.3 and Rule 17, and Amending Rules 14.1 through 16.12 of the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rules

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2015

Having the same established method operate in all sixty judicial districts will assist the appellate courts when a matter is appealed. … Rule 8.2 establishes procedures for filing motions for reconsideration.

Commonwealth v. Santos

275 Pa. 515 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1923

(d) The law -seems established that, where one accused of homicide pleads self-defense, he may introduce evidence of communicated threats made against him by the deceased (Com. v. … (o) Were the above opinions of the examining physician properly admissible, and if so, do they, together with his uncontradicted testimony on which they are partly based and the undisputed physical facts in the case, clearly

In Re: Order Rescinding and Replacing Rules 1.1 through 13.3 and Rule 17, and Amending Rules 14.1 through 16.12 of the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rules

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2015

Having the same established method operate in all sixty judicial districts will assist the appellate courts when a matter is appealed. … Rule 8.2 establishes procedures for filing motions for reconsideration.