Case law

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.

Commonwealth v. Albrecht

510 Pa. 603 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1986

Medical testimony adduced at trial established the cause of death for all three was from the conflagration. … The nine individuals who were excused for cause clearly could not have imposed the death penalty and, as such, were properly excused under the law of Witherspoon .

Carson v. Godley

26 Pa. 111 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1856

"We have no thoughts of relaxing or qualifying a rule so obviously just and politic; but if we had, we would-hardly do it in a case involving the very same circumstances to which we so recently applied it. ■ It may be proper … These things it was most clearly his duty to do as a man of ordinary prudence, and these things the jury have found he did not do.

Oncken v. Ewing

336 Pa. 43 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1939

L. 419, section 15, * provides that the court of common pleas may, upon application of any qualified elector, require the county commissioners to correct any mistake or omission in the printing of the ballots. … It would be unjustifiable, and indeed *Page 47 intolerable, after the electorate has clearly expressed its will, for a court to declare an election null and void merely because of some inconsequential defect in the form of

Commonwealth v. Brown, J., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2026

[J-56-2025] - 12 of the statement, and thus found nothing to indicate that the Tusweet Smith confession to Dorsett was sufficiently trustworthy to qualify as a statement against penal interest. … Whether evidence would be admissible to establish the underlying claim is distinct from whether evidence is admissible to establish the existence of a “fact” that establishes the timeliness exception.

In the Interest of: T.W.; Apl: T.W.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2021

Nor is it simply preferable to establish the necessary facts; it is mandatory. … The fact that the Majority accepts that this testimony could qualify the item as a weapon establishes the precedent that ensures almost anything else will, too.

Bold v. Bold

524 Pa. 487 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1990

This clearly was not intended by the Legislature. Even under § 501, as amended, such a position is untenable. … Clearly, Mrs. Bold subsidized Mr. Bold's educational enterprise, and, therefore, paid, albeit indirectly, part of the cost of Mr.

Commonwealth v. Topa

471 Pa. 223 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1977

application of the Frye standard when scientific proof is offered is essential if the defendant is to receive a just and fair trial: “The requirement of general acceptance in the scientific community assures that those most qualified … Clearly, the first two requirements of Brady have been met. The Commonwealth asserts, however, that the evidence was not material. I cannot agree. Recently, in United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.

Haller v. Pennsylvania R. R.

306 Pa. 98 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1931

After testifying that he had been driving automobiles for five years [for the purpose of qualifying himself as a judge of speed] he was asked: “Are you able to estimate for us how fast the passenger train was moving at the … It was, therefore, clearly the province of the jury to ascertain from the evidence the true position of the child while the train was moving up Cresson Street, when and how far the engineer ought to have seen the child...

Auerbach v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.

421 Pa. 594 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1966

If the. accident happened in this manner, the negligence of the defendant company, through its driver, was established absolutely. … But the court charged very clearly on proximate cause: “Furthermore, even if you determine that the defendant was negligent and the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, you must then determine whether the defendant

Moure v. Raeuchle

529 Pa. 394 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 1992

In order for a plaintiff to state a cause of action under this theory he or she need not establish that the unauthorized surgery was done negligently. … This evidence apparently was accepted by the jury, and clearly indicates that the actions of appellant not only qualified as “treatment” but would also have supported a conclusion that this treatment was medically “necessary

Pennsylvania & New York Railroad & Canal Co. v. Bunnell

81 Pa. 414 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 1871

The power of the court to amend being established, the conclusiveness of the record as amended follows of course. … This was objected to by defendants, on the ground that “ the witness is not competent to speak of value until the ground is laid, by showing that he had some legal knowledge of value that qualifies him to speak.”

In Re Adoption of J.E.F.

587 Pa. 650 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2006

For purposes of decision, we will assume that appellant is correct that it qualifies as an entity whose consent is contemplated by Section 2711(a)(5) because of its custodial authority over the children. … Therefore, we will not establish a bright-line rule regarding consolidation, but rather leave that decision to the trial courts.

Bacchetta v. Bacchetta

498 Pa. 227 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1982

There is no basis in the statute to qualify this legislative mandate by restricting the applicability of the equitable distribution requirement to only that marital property acquired after July 1, 1980, the effective date … The approach ignores longstanding precedents of this Court, as well as express directives of the legislature, which clearly establish that there need not be any language in a statute limiting its retroactive application *

Commonwealth v. Cochran II, S., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2021

Appellant notes this Court has interpreted an identical phrase in 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508, which provides for a mandatory sentence if a defendant has a conviction for another qualifying offense “at the time of sentencing.” … We held, “the wording of [Section 7508] is unambiguous, and clearly requires that as long as at the time of sentencing, a defendant ‘has been convicted’ of another qualifying ‘offense,’ the defendant shall receive an enhanced

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Greer, R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2024

Prior to the establishment of a briefing schedule, however, Attorney Tambourino filed an application for remand. … Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Detective Ripley’s testimony in [interpreting] the cell tower data and offering cell tower analysis when he was not qualified as an expert and is not

Addison Case

385 Pa. 48 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1956

It derives its qualifying meaning from the character of the thing done. … That case was factually entirely different from the instant case, and as such is clearly distinguishable.

Commonwealth v. Collins

8 Watts 331 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 1839

It begins: “ We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, &c. &c., do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” … This was not denied; nor was it seriously contended, nor, I think, can it be, that Governor Ritner could not constitutionally appoint any qualified man to any vacant office.

Com. v. Washington

549 Pa. 12 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 1997

Thus, even assuming that a Bruton violation occurred, it was harmless error in light of the properly admitted evidence clearly establishing Appellant's guilt. See Commonwealth v. … The burden is on Appellant to establish such prejudice. See Commonwealth v.

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Lindsay

185 A.3d 307 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2018

Lindsay acknowledges that if he had raised the section 403(a) violation as a counterclaim, the counterclaim would undoubtedly qualify as an action arising under Act 6, but he explains that the case law is unclear as to whether … As a result, he has not established a basis for an entitlement to attorneys' fees under Act 6.