Case law

Commonwealth v. Davis

526 Pa. 428 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1991

The father's complaint, without regard to its validity or assigning blame to the minor, clearly reflected that the placement was not serving the intended purposes. … A review of this initial placement established that it was not serving the intended objectives.

COUNCIL 13, EX REL. FILLMAN v. Rendell

986 A.2d 63 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2009

a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter or a maximum work week lower than the maximum workweek established under this chapter, and no provision of this chapter relating to the employment … of child labor shall justify noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a higher standard than the standard established under this chapter.... 29 U.S.C. § 218 (a).

Walsh v. BASF Corporation Apl of: Deere

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2020

trial court erred without explaining how it abused its discretion because of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, ill-will or such lack of support from the evidence or the record so as to be clearly … Brautbar also applied the Bradford Hill criteria to establish a causal link between AML and long-term exposure to pesticides.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Shorall

527 Pa. 413 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 1991

Campbell, supra,____ Nor is the petitioner required to establish the misconduct through direct evidence. The ethical violations may be proven solely by circumstantial evidence. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. … Clearly Respondent’s impeding the discovery of the truth is both contrary and prejudicial to the administration of justice and adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

In Re Estate of Reifsneider

531 Pa. 19 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 1992

The reduction to statutory law of precepts already established in case law is in itself a legitimate legislative purpose. … Powers of attorney are strictly construed and the grant of special powers is not to be enlarged unless this is clearly intended. Fierst v.

Commonwealth v. Shifflett, G., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2025

Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and a challenger bears the burden of establishing that their provisions “clearly, palpably, and plainly” violate the Constitution. Martin v. … Id. 10 In Erlinger, the prosecutor initially sought imposition of an enhanced sentence pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), which is triggered when a defendant has three or more qualifying convictions

Stapas v. Giant Eagle, Inc.

198 A.3d 1033 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2018

In this case, the trial court did not instruct the jury on the difference between past wage loss and future wage loss, and the verdict slip did not qualify the category of "wage loss" damages. … The majority's analysis is tantamount to error review in a unique and fact-bound matter where the decision will likely muddy the waters and engender confusion in what was heretofore a clearly established area of law.

Walsh v. BASF Corporation Apl of: Dow

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2020

trial court erred without explaining how it abused its discretion because of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, ill-will or such lack of support from the evidence or the record so as to be clearly … Brautbar also applied the Bradford Hill criteria to establish a causal link between AML and long-term exposure to pesticides.

Walsh v. BASF Corporation Apl of: Monsanto

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2020

trial court erred without explaining how it abused its discretion because of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, ill-will or such lack of support from the evidence or the record so as to be clearly … Brautbar also applied the Bradford Hill criteria to establish a causal link between AML and long-term exposure to pesticides.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Witmayer, M.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2020

facto provision is found in Article I, Section 17 of our Constitution, which states that: “No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities … • The subchapter also establishes a website to be operated in conjunction with the statewide registry.

Chamberlain v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

631 Pa. 489 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2015

Id., § 802.6. 3 Here, the record establishes that in July of 2012, Charles H. Chamberlain (Claimant) was unemployed and was receiving unemployment compensation benefits. … Even if this Court were to consider the workers’ compensation cases as persuasive, Claimant maintains, the instant facts are clearly distinguishable.

Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. Commonwealth

582 Pa. 338 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2005

The issue in this case is clearly one of statutory interpretation. … The Code’s definition of “public utility” states plainly and clearly that “[t]he term does not include ...

Walsh v. BASF Corporation Apl of: Syngenta

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2020

trial court erred without explaining how it abused its discretion because of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, ill-will or such lack of support from the evidence or the record so as to be clearly … Brautbar also applied the Bradford Hill criteria to establish a causal link between AML and long-term exposure to pesticides.

Ferraro, B. v. Patterson-Erie, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2024

The Superior Court panel concluded that the plaintiff’s conduct did not qualify as a good faith effort to accomplish service of process. Id. … Farinacci, 511 A.2d at 760 (Zappala, J., dissenting) (stating that the Lamp decision “clearly evinces an intention to permit a party to demonstrate that his actions have not unreasonably stalled the legal proceedings he

Porter v. Commonwealth

454 Pa. 461 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1973

Even assuming that there are no comparable sales available, the market value might be established by the testimony of persons acquainted with the lands, and whose knowledge and experience qualifies them to form an intelligent … The testimony as to sales of properties comparable to the Porter property was relevant to both of these issues and therefore clearly admissible in this trial." Sechan Limestone v. Commonwealth, 4 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Daniels

600 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2009

The PCRA court offered that the photographs of the crime scene clearly showed a body in which rigor mortis had set in. … Counsel clearly cannot be faulted for failing to raise a Huffman objection at trial because Huffman did not exist.

Commonwealth v. Guldin

502 Pa. 66 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 1983

The facts of this case clearly demonstrate the error of the order of discharge entered by Judge Lord and affirmed by a panel of the Superior Court. … However, the motion to quash was not "still pending or resolved so near the expiration of the mandatory period fixed by the rule" so as to qualify as judicial delay as enumerated by this Court in Commonwealth v.

Penncrest SD v. Cagle, T., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2025

Cmwlth. 2016) (“In discerning whether records qualify as records ‘of’ a particular agency, we consider the subject-matter of the records. … We thus find no error in the Commonwealth Court’s decision to remand this matter to the trial court for further consideration under the RTKL’s well-established test. VI.

Schmidt v. Boardman Co.

608 Pa. 327 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2011

CVFD settled with Appellees, tendering the maximum damages recoverable under the law consistent with governmental immunity. … As further discussed below, Hill’s perspective, in this regard, clearly reflects a misreading of Dawejko . .

Commonwealth v. Batts, Q., Aplt.

163 A.3d 410 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2017

Sanchez, 614 Pa. 1 , 36 A.3d 24 (2011), to create procedures for determining whether a defendant convicted of first-degree murder is immune from the death penalty pursuant to Atkins v. … Expert testimony is admissible in Pennsylvania if the information is outside of the common knowledge of the factfinder and the testimony of an expert, so qualified based upon his or her.