Case law

Commonwealth v. Wilson

538 Pa. 485 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1994

In accordance with the standard established in Commonwealth v. … To the contrary, the record clearly shows that Appellant’s decision to leave the courtroom was made voluntarily.

Baker v. ACandS

562 Pa. 290 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2000

That concurring opinion was not joined by any other justice, and thus clearly is of no precedential value. … The language of the UCATA is very broad and clearly applies to all types of actions.

Commonwealth v. Kyle

367 Pa. Super. 484 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1987

This is not to say, however, that a preclusion of a defendant’s access to pre-trial information is immune from constitutional review. … Clearly, the privacy interest of the patients which is implicated under the instant set of facts is the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.

In Re Estate of DeRoy

481 Pa. 403 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1978

Jean Lois DeRoy is, therefore, clearly not a child `adopted before the date of the will.' … This distribution scheme clearly indicates testator's intent to bestow the principle of these trust funds upon the children of his one son and three daughters for whom trust incomes for life were established by the will.

Landay v. Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc.

629 Pa. 287 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2014

Cmwlth. 1984) (noting that, in enacting the HCFA, the legislature clearly was concerned with rising health care costs). … See, e.g., Pennsylvania eHealth Information Technology Act, 35 P.S. § 510.101 (enacted July 5, 2012) (concerning “consent and confidentiality of health information; and establishing civil immunity under certain circumstances

Philadelphia Saving Fund Society v. Banking Board

383 Pa. 253 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 1955

want the home mortgage loans nor the savings accounts (or time deposits) which the Society specializes in, 7 and consequently if The Pennsylvania Company were the only bank in the community in question the Society would clearly … Where a Board is composed of able and experienced experts who are dealing with technical questions, a Court should be loath to find a clear abuse of discretion upon a subject or subjects as to which they are far better qualified

Grimaldi v. Local No. 9

397 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 1959

Labor unions have the right to picket for organizational purposes, that is, to persuade non-union employees of an establishment to join a union. … This quite clearly is not so. No one would seriously contend that a dispute between one employer and one employee would not constitute a labor dispute. (See 43 PS § 206c(b).)

Wallace v. Harmstad

44 Pa. 492 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 1863

Setting aside all the obiter dicta of those cases, they clearly established these several conclusions, grounding them all on the policy of the law which altogether forbids parties from tampering with written instruments or … If the best evidence of the grant cannot be had, the next best will be received; but the result of the evidence must be to establish the grant.

Commonwealth v. Noel, H., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2014

While the Majority Opinion herein does not completely accept that error occurred, for my part, I agree with the Superior Court dissent that the trial court clearly and palpably violated and misapplied Rule 631.3 As noted … Accordingly, the trial court’s misapplication of Rule 631, as described infra, certainly qualifies as an abuse of discretion. 4 Indeed, the Majority resorts to two inapposite Superior Court cases for the conclusion

Robinson Township v. Commonwealth

637 Pa. 239 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2016

Consequently, the procedures established by Sections 3305 and 3306 purposely bypass the well-established ordinance review procedures of the MPC, which, necessarily, involve the deliberative and adjudicative processes of the … [transporting or conveying natural ... gas ... by pipeline or conduit, for the public for compensation” qualify for classification as a public utility. 66 Pa.C.S. § 102(l)(i); (v) (emphasis added).

Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc.

542 Pa. 526 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1995

Clearly, the relationship of hospital and/or doctor to patients is not dictated by the distribution of such products, even if there is some surcharge on the price of the product. … Appellants, ignoring the precondition necessary for application of this analysis, that is, establishment of the appellees as sellers, would nevertheless apply it.

Commonwealth v. Cunningham

622 Pa. 543 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2013

Accord Williams, 367 Ill.Dec. 503 , 982 N.E.2d at 197 (holding that Miller’s holding qualifies as a watershed rule of criminal procedure under the second Teague exception). … Our role in establishing social policy in the arena is a limited one, however.

In Re Nomination Certificate of Street

499 Pa. 26 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1982

As we agree with the Commonwealth Court that appellants’ claims do not establish a violation of appellants’ First or Fourteenth Amendment rights, we affirm. 5 II In National Wood Preservers, Inc. v. … Senator Street’s name will be on the ballot for Democrats, Republicans and all other qualified electors to vote in November.

William Penn SD, Aplts v. Dept of Educ

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2017

They also contend that, because Plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction compelling a new public education framework, their suit is barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See id. at 39- 41. … This Court found that the Education Clause saved the statute because the Clause embodies the concept that public-school teacher contracts are impliedly qualified by the possibility of future legislative modification.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Arnett, R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2026

[J-34-2025] - 9 subjected to its terms or conditions. 45 With regard to Subchapter H of SORNA II, we held, “the clearly expressed legislative purpose, findings, and declaration of policy all establish that, rather than … [J-34-2025] - 16 establish that SORNA II is not a criminal punishment.

City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

574 Pa. 372 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2003

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, however, reversed, holding that the dispatcher position did not qualify as an “available position” because it required Mr. Szparagowski to forfeit a “qualitative benefit.” … Applying this standard to the instant case, the City clearly satisfied the first prong of the Kachinski test. Specifically, the City introduced evidence that Mr.

Commonwealth v. Moore

569 Pa. 508 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2002

Depriving the jury of this type of testimony clearly is prejudicial to [Appellant]. PCRA Ct. Op., 7/21/98, at 5-6. … Justice Castille's assertions to the contrary in his concurring and dissenting opinion, Pursell clearly controls the instant case.

Commonwealth v. Harvey

374 Pa. Super. 289 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 1988

The state makes no contract with criminals, at the time of the passage of an act of limitation, that they shall have immunity from punishment if not prosecuted within the statutory period. … The majority in Story , however, held that application of the sentencing procedures established by the Act of September 13, 1978, to a crime occurring in 1974 would be retroactive, and refused to apply the act retroactively

Commonwealth v. Cobbs, J., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2021

The Commonwealth emphasizes that there is no modifier or qualifying language present, and there is no restriction on the scope of the term “sentenced.” … According to the Commonwealth, Section 2704 does not require a “valid” sentence, nor one that is immune from collateral constitutional challenge.

Commonwealth v. Stoyko

504 Pa. 455 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1984

So viewed, the evidence was clearly sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to both counts of murder of the first degree. … the death penalty, the appellant will have no opportunity for post-conviction relief wherein he could raise, say, an assertion of ineffectiveness of counsel for failure to preserve an issue or some other reason that might qualify