Case law

In re Anonymous No. 6 D.B. 94

43 Pa. D. & C.4th 150 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 1999

In determining whether petitioner clearly demonstrated his present fitness, the board must consider the nature of petitioner’s misconduct, his present competence and legal abilities, his character, his rehabilitation, and … The board finds that petitioner did not meet his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that he is morally qualified, competent and learned in the law.

Commonwealth v. Williams

574 Pa. 487 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2003

The board shall establish standards for evaluations and for evaluators conducting the assessments.... … Clearly, however, it should not solicit information beyond that which is necessary for verification purposes as provided in Section 9796, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9796. 13 . The court in Artway v.

Commonwealth v. Percell

499 Pa. 589 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1982

Clearly, the prosecutor's question could only have been an improper reference to appellant's prior criminal conviction and to the concomitant statutory sanction of withdrawal of the privilege to register and carry a weapon … At that juncture his prior conviction established at least his prior knowledge that carrying a gun is illegal.

Commonwealth v. Dobbins

594 Pa. 71 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2007

We began by distinguishing Leet, which established only the “general proposition” that the deputy sheriff “was authorized to enforce the law,” from the question presented, “whether [the sheriff] was authorized to enforce … We qualified our ruling, however, by holding that the training requirements the legislature imposed on municipal police officers applied equally to sheriffs.

In Re RJT

9 A.3d 1179 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2010

Rosenblum recommended dual tracking. [1] Clearly, Dr. Rosenblum was noncommittal whether adoption of R.J.T. should be pursued. … s permanent home should be established by July 2009); id. at 28 (indicating the expert's intention to conduct an interactive evaluation between the foster parents and the child); In re R.J.T., No.

City of McKeesport v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Miletti)

560 Pa. 413 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2000

301(c)(2) of the Act. [4] The relevant section of the Act provides that: The terms "injury," "personal injury," and "injury arising in the course of his employment," as used in this act, shall include, unless the context clearly … Thus, section 315 is no impediment to the death claim, and the City of McKeesport has not suggested that the Act otherwise bars the underlying claim for disability. [1] Section 108, under which Decedent's disease qualifies

Burch v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

320 Pa. Super. 444 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1983

“An expert witness has been defined as a person who possesses knowledge not within the ordinary reach and *471 who, because of this knowledge is specially qualified to speak upon a particular subject.” Erschen v. … My review of the record suggests also that the weight of the evidence was clearly to the effect (1) that the legal cause of plaintiff’s injury was not a defective design of the electric lawn mower but the careless, if not

Commonwealth v. Briggs

608 Pa. 430 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2011

Appellant’s deliberate and repeated use of a firearm to shoot the deputies in those areas clearly establishes his specific intent to kill both men with malice. … Subsequent coverage was clearly not pervasive, sustained, or prejudicial.

KEARNS BY KEARNS v. DeHaas

377 Pa. Super. 200 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 1988

It is true that a duly qualified expert witness may rely upon accepted published authorities on the subject of his expertise. See: McDonough v. U.S. … Her opinion as to DeHass' relative speed was rationally based on her perception and clearly helpful to the determination of the facts in issue. See generally, Lewis v.

Commonwealth v. Vandivner, J., Aplt.

178 A.3d 108 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2018

Analysis Preliminarily, in order to qualify for relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated … Accordingly, our standard of review is whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the legal conclusion drawn therefrom is clearly erroneous.

Gardner v. Allegheny County

382 Pa. 88 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1955

One is whether or not a court in equity possesses jurisdiction to establish the fact of a "taking" of property and to award compensation *124 therefor. … To have state courts interpose judicial action would clearly interfere with necessarily exclusive Federal control of air navigation.

Commonwealth v. Newman

429 Pa. 441 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1968

They were required to state their purpose: "The fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure clearly demands that, ordinarily, before a police officer enters upon private premises to conduct a search … The record shows that the detectives in this case were qualified experts in this field and they were undoubtedly aware of such practices." [2] Thus a comparison of the entry in Ker with this entry indicates that the same

Riley v. McNaugher

318 Pa. 217 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1935

We cannot without establishing a different rule than what we have established in railroad crossing cases, declare as a matter of law that Riley was guilty of contributory negligence on the theory that if he had driven his … Defendant’s extreme negligence in this ease is established (and, of course, on this motion is not controverted).

Elza v. Chovan

396 Pa. 112 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 1959

the fact, that the reversed verdict is clearly, palpably, and grossly inadequate. … In this case this Court had an opportunity to uphold the decision of the trial judge in a matter in which we have so often said that the trial judge is better qualified to speak than an appellate court which does not see

Harris Estate

351 Pa. 368 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1944

These gifts were considered to be clearly and unambiguously expressed. The same thing is true in Erk’s Estate, 311 Pa. 185 , 166 A. 656 . … The intention to make a gift measured by the extent of the right which she might exercise was thus clearly expressed in the will.

Leach, D. v. Turzai, M.

636 Pa. 81 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2016

The legislative leaders filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, the Commonwealth filed preliminary objections asserting sovereign immunity, and the Governor filed preliminary objections stating that no … It contains dozens of chapters which, among other things, define crimes and defenses, set penalties, establish victims’ rights and civil remedies, and regulate criminal history records.

Crown Castle NG East LLC v. PUC, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2020

Just last year the High Court reaffirmed Auer’s continuing validity, albeit in a fractured and qualified ruling. See Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400 (2019). … The text, structure, history, and so forth at least establish the outer bounds of permissible interpretation.)

Commonwealth v. Woodhouse

401 Pa. 242 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1960

The answers of the judges gave being to the now long famous "M'Naghten Rule," namely, that "to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly *250 proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, … It is hard to be mad enough to qualify for its protection, and this makes it the convenient delight of prosecutors.

Consum Adv v. PUC; Apl of: East Whiteland Twp

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2025

Here, the Township insists the record clearly supports the conclusion that the Commission did, in fact, consider the transaction’s rate impact. … It also only references Section 1102 to address what information must be contained in an 1102 application, see 66 Pa.C.S. § 1329(d)(1) and (e), and who qualifies as an “entity.”

Thompson v. Thompson Apl of: Clarion Dom. Rel.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2020

The trial court subsequently entered an order establishing Thompson’s child support obligation at that amount. … Long established maxims [J-27-2019] - 9 of statutory construction compel this result.