Case law

Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas Judges

443 Pa. 484 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1971

The present Constitution clearly and specifically provides, in Article IV, Section 8, for the appointment by the Governor to offices other than Judicial offices, and is clearly, obviously and unquestionably inapplicable to … senatorial approval: “He [the Commissioner of Banking] shall be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall hold his office for the term of four years and until his successor is duly qualified

Williams v. Williams

373 Pa. Super. 143 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1988

It is apparent that the purpose of the court’s order was to establish that each party was entitled to one-half the value of the real estate from the time of separation. … Therefore the trial court correctly concluded that the wife did not qualify for permanent alimony under Section 501. IV.

Reese v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform

173 A.3d 1143 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2017

PFUR then sets about trying to establish that these conditions are not met in the present appeal. PFUR’s Brief at 12. … The List qualifies as a "record” under the RTKL: "Record."

Green v. Milk Control Commission

340 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1940

marketing area committees in connection therewith,” and it contains the further provision that “The operation and effect of any provision of this act conferring a general power upon the commission shall not be impaired or qualified … When the Milk Control Law gives the Commission the power to fix prices it clearly covers the net prices to be received by the producer.

Geniviva v. Frisk

555 Pa. 589 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 1999

Although in Pennsylvania the doctrine has been reduced from case law and set forth in our Rules of Appellate Procedure as establishing a class of orders that may be appealed as of right, it nevertheless remains a specialized … Accordingly, under this rule an order must meet a three-prong test to qualify as a "collateral order;" separability, importance and urgency. Ben v. Schwartz, 690 A.2d 849, 851 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1997).

Commonwealth v. Sanchez

552 Pa. 570 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1998

Information secured through valid and legal means in a foreign jurisdiction may be used to establish probable cause for a search warrant in this Commonwealth. … A substantive right is defined as "a right to equal enjoyment of fundamental rights, privileges and immunities; distinguished from a procedural right." Black's Law Dictionary 1429 (6th ed.1990).

Commonwealth v. Henderson

497 Pa. 23 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 24, 1981

Second, he must establish that the persons excluded are members of a cognizable group within the meaning of the representative cross-section rule. … If you believe, members of the jury, that the witness was not, was not in a position to clearly observe the assailant, if you believe that, or if you believe that the witness is not positive as to the identity, or if you

Commonwealth v. Haag

570 Pa. 289 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2002

Our Supreme Court has interpreted the statutory filing exceptions literally, clearly stating that if an exception is not in the statute, then it does not exist. See Fahy, supra. … that an evidentiary hearing is required in order to qualify for the appointment of counsel or be compelled to proceed pro se.

Samarin v. GAF Corp.

391 Pa. Super. 340 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1989

Such statements are clearly inadmissible hearsay as they are out-of-court declarations offered to show the truth of the matter contained in the declaration. Reimer v. … We do not reach the issue today of whether a layman who works extensively with asbestos products is qualified to testify as to the presence of asbestos in a product. .

Sacks v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare

502 Pa. 201 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1983

For instance, there was a futile effort to establish a cost limitation program for hospital costs. … The profits are clearly shown in the corporation’s annual audited financial statements, and the amounts are earmarked as from the child screening program.

Commonwealth v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.

475 Pa. 318 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1977

of the aggregate of apparatus which comprises the liquid conversion system. 16 Since under the Tax Act the non-taxable nature of property used in manufacturing is established by way of a defined legislative exclusion from … In both cases it was held that cylinders designed to vaporize liquefied propane did not qualify for an exemption to the respective state’s use tax.

In Re Baby Girl D.

512 Pa. 449 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1986

A schedule of fees based solely on the adopters’ income does not establish any correlation with the actual services flowing to the child. … (b) Compilation of list. — The court shall compile a list of qualified counselors and counseling services (including adoption agencies) which are available to counsel natural parents who are contemplating relinquishment or

Commonwealth v. Chaitt

380 Pa. 532 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1955

borne in mind that an intention of Congress to supersede or suspend the exercise of the police powers of the States, even when it has the power to do so, is not to be implied unless its purpose to effect that result is clearly … It is appalling to contemplate that by the Majority's decision, the Pennsylvania courts will immunize violators of a Federal Act and, by giving them carte blanche immunity, practically invite them to commit further invasions

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Herman, J.

639 Pa. 466 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 2017

The testimony also established that JWH-018 and PB-22 are in different structural classes, see supra note 9, and Dr. … The “substantial” qualifier speaks to the degree of similarity needed to bring a substance within the designer drug prohibition.

Linkosky, J. v. PennDOT, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2021

The trial court held a hearing on January 17, 2019, during which the aforementioned facts were established. … Contrary to the Commonwealth Court’s holding, the Department contends, the issuance of a camera card, whether an original or duplicate, clearly results in “a grant or extension driving privileges” in this Commonwealth pursuant

Peterson v. Speer

29 Pa. 478 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1857

They meant to afford absolute protection in every court of judicature to the honest debtor, who had Iona fide surrendered his all to his creditors, but no immunity whatever to him who had practised fraud and concealment, … If he stood by and allowed Donnelly to recover against Brunot’s tenant, that would establish the Henry Peterson title.

Hackenberg v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

526 Pa. 358 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1991

. § 1786, and that such responsibility can be established either through the purchase of insurance coverage or by certification of self-insurance, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1782(a). … In fact, the MVFRL defines the term “self-insurer” as “an entity providing benefits and qualified in the manner set forth in section 1787.”

Canovaro v. Brothers of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine

326 Pa. 76 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1936

A parochial school was also established for Roman Catholic educational purposes under the Franciscan Sisters. … This clearly demonstrates that he had no civil right as an individual that appertained to the property of any particular church.

Commonwealth v. Lopez

616 Pa. 570 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2012

This claim qualifies for no PCRA time-bar exception; and in any event, since it seeks to condemn counsel retroactively with the burden of a new duty, it is frivolous. *197 Whenever possible, serial PCRA petitions should be … Our decisional law, which appellant ignores, counsels that the answer clearly is “No.”

Commonwealth v. Edwards

399 Pa. Super. 545 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1990

On August 7, faced with the prospect of procuring a bondable general contractor or being removed himself, appellant established Premier, of which he was the sole proprietor, and set out to qualify it for bonding. … Although referring to the funds as “taxpayers’ money” may have been technically incorrect, public funds were clearly involved.