Case law

In re Anonymous No. 68 D.B. 93

34 Pa. D. & C.4th 292 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 1996

The important fact is that the respondent clearly had, prior to this application to the bar of this Commonwealth, applied for admission in the State of Ohio. … The dishonesty exhibited by the respondent herein cannot be tolerated and clearly establishes his unfitness to practice law. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, 493 Pa. 194 , 425 A.2d 730 (1981). V.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Graham v. Graham

367 Pa. 553 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1951

The Ohio decree is clearly valid and binding on all courts; but equally clearly it can be modified or changed by Pennsylvania courts, which subsequently acquire jurisdiction, if, but only if, "changed conditions affecting … The Ohio court and the court of Clearfield County found that both the mother and the great-grandfather were qualified to care for the child.

Discovery Charter School v. School District of Philadelphia

166 A.3d 304 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2017

CAB oversight is necessary to prevent local school boards from restricting the creation and growth of charter schools and defeating the legislative intent to provide expanded choices in public education, id.-, and that immunizing … To the contrary, it argues, the Commonwealth Court clearly held that when a request has been made for an amendment for a particular school year, failing to consider the request before that school year ends constitutes a denial

Commonwealth v. King

595 Pa. 685 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2007

Clearly, each assertion is a distinct representation, and thus qualifies as a “statement.” Turning next to the materiality requirement, the analysis should begin and end with the plain language of the statute. … The Majority’s test thus requires the Commonwealth to establish that each statement, by itself, affected the course or outcome of the proceedings. But the Majority is not done.

Commonwealth v. Harper

512 Pa. 155 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1986

The rule of statutory construction noted in Whalen is not a constitutional rule requiring courts to negate clearly expressed legislative intent. … also argues that it is inconceivable that the Legislature intended that a defendant who has committed a felony-inspired killing should then be permitted to rifle through and steal all of the victim’s belongings with total immunity

Clark v. Hoerner

362 Pa. Super. 588 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1987

In its case in chief, appellees attempted to establish that complications of bacterial pneumonia caused Sharon’s death. Appellees’ case was based in part on the theory that defendant-appellant, Dr. … Atkinson was clearly qualified as a pulmonary specialist and appellees placed his qualifications on the record.

Garrett's Estate

335 Pa. 287 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1939

case of a plaintiff asking for a commission to examine himself, that also appears to me to be a matter of discretion, but the discretion will be exercised in a stricter manner, and the Court ought to require to be more clearly … I think, therefore, that the order must be qualified by inserting a proviso that the depositions of the Plaintiff are not to be read if the Defendant requires him to appear at the trial to be examined and cross-examined.”

Harvey v. Allegheny County Retirement Board

392 Pa. 421 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1958

The legislature may from time to time, within the confines of that established relation, alter, change, amend, and render intact the actuarial soundness of the system so as to strengthen its fibers in any way it sees fit. … In Hichey the petitioner, an employe of the City of Pittsburgh, had completed twenty years of service with the city and paid certain sums into the Pittsburgh Pension Fund and was therefore qualified under the Pension Act

Lamp v. Heyman

469 Pa. 465 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1976

statutes of limitation of avoiding stale claims, 6 and with that underlying our court rules of making the processes of justice as speedy and efficient as possible. 7 Ac *478 cordingly, we believe that the rule must now be qualified … Again, the two reasons enumerated for the holding were presented as alternatives, and so, clearly, the plaintiff’s instructions to the sheriff did not in themselves bar her under the statute of limitations.

Weir by Gasper v. Estate of Ciao

521 Pa. 491 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1989

No confidential relationship was established. … That court found as a matter of law that the evidence did not meet the standard which would qualify it as grounds for a new trial.

Commonwealth v. Smagala

383 Pa. Super. 466 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 1989

Officer Palo was qualified as an expert witness in the field of narcotic investigation and the packaging, sale and distribution of controlled substances. … to be determined from all the circumstances, and while the subject’s knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into account, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing

McCann v. Amy Joy Donut Shops

325 Pa. Super. 340 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1984

Appellants assert that causation was established by the testimony of their expert medical witness, Dr. Crone. They offer the following testimony as presenting sufficient evidence of causation. … I would further find that both errors were clearly prejudicial and would, therefore, grant a new trial.

Valles v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

569 Pa. 542 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2002

The surgery on the patient is clearly the kind of work the hospital hired the physician-employee to perform. … Morros's oral testimony established that the right subclavien vein was the only viable site for the Permacath.

Commonwealth v. Burno, J., Aplt.

638 Pa. 264 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2017

The affidavit need only establish the probability that Burno was involved in the murders. The affidavit established without question that Juarbe and Rosado were murdered. The affidavit contained statements *294 from Ms. … This circumstantial evidence, and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, clearly established that Juarbe and Rosado, who argued and fought -with their assailants, and ultimately engaged in a shootout with them, were lives-in-being

In Re Voter Referendum Petition Filed August 5, 2008

602 Pa. 569 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2009

Appellant Casey filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which this Court granted. 3 Before this Court, Appellant Casey asserts that the Voter Referendum Question meets all the requirements to qualify for placement on the … Home Rule Charter, Article XII, § 2(a). 9 *583 Voter referendum questions must be germane to County government and involve a single subject, clearly expressed in the title. Id.

Pioneer Commercial Funding Corp. v. American Financial Mortgage Corp.

579 Pa. 275 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2004

Here, the proceeds from the sale of the second loan portfolio to Norwest remained clearly identifiable, by virtue of CoreStates' debit restraint. 14 . … Pioneer did offer testimony from an attorney, but it was presented as fact evidence—Pioneer offered no testimony from a qualified expert witness in the liability proceedings.

Toogood v. Rogal

573 Pa. 245 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 2003

Stone's dismissal and concluded that the Rogal Defendants had confused a valid defense of immunity with the defense of release and satisfaction and "evidence[d] a profound misapprehension of the nature of the vicarious liability … These facts, in my view, clearly satisfy the first prong of the res ipsa test because it is generally understood that in the absence of negligence, such an injection does not ordinarily puncture a lung and cause it to collapse

Marinello v. Marinello

354 Pa. Super. 471 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 1986

Further, preemption is in derogation of section 301 which clearly reserves partition as a prerogative of the court, given a claim. … These cases clearly reflect our determination that the need for expeditious action includes within its definition comprehensiveness.

Shoul v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing

173 A.3d 669 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2017

It is well-established that driving is merely a privilege subject to reasonable regulation by the state. See Plowman v. … Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community. Id. at 391-92 (quoting Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v.

Hamilton Appeal

407 Pa. 366 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 1962

Hence, appellants cannot qualify for mandamus. A final and insurmountable obstacle facing appellants is the very nature of a mandamus proceeding. As we held in Kaufman Construction Co. v. … Even more clearly beyond dispute, the judge to whom the memorial has been presented need not accept the opinions or conclusory statements contained therein.