Case law

Commonwealth v. Serge

586 Pa. 671 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2006

Instead, they used a CGA to more concisely and more clearly present their opinion. The difference is one of mode, not meaning. … Appellant also argues that Trooper Beach was not qualified as an expert in the field of crime reconstruction, despite acknowledging that the trial court admitted him as such.

In re Enforcement of Subpoenas to John Doe Corporations A, B, C, D & E

507 Pa. 137 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1985

The former Pennsylvania Crime Commission, created by the Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 754, No. 235, § 2, 71 P.S. § 179 (Adm.Code § 469), repealed, 1978, Oct. 4, P.L. 876, No. 169, § 12, was originally established as a “departmental … In this regard it is noteworthy that the General Assembly clearly understood the distinctions between the procedures as is evidenced by the detailed, accepted method drafted for the Commission to pursue a grant of immunity

Commonwealth v. American Ice Co.

406 Pa. 322 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1962

The American Ice Company is a New Jersey corporation qualified to do business in Pennsylvania as a foreign corporation since 1912. … The description of the operations contained in the stipulation of facts clearly reveal a complicated technical production in which a raw material is transformed into a distinct and definite finished product.

Carter, C., Pets. v. Chapman, L.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2022

Namely, as further explained, those plans make changes that depart radically from the historical treatment of certain established communities of interest. … While the adoption of a fixed standard is desirable, without the benefit of advocacy I believe this Court is ill-equipped to clearly answer that question.

Commonwealth v. Taylor, P., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2022

If [Taylor’s] judicial bias claim does not qualify under a PCRA timeliness exception, is it nevertheless cognizable under state habeas corpus? (Taylor’s Brief at 2.) … By employing the past tense in writing this provision, the legislature clearly intended that the right was already recognized at the time the petition was filed.

Commonwealth v. Moore

453 Pa. 302 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1973

A witness is “incompetent” or “disqualified” when his testimony is thought to have no probative value in establishing or refuting the issue at hand. 3 It was the common law *311 rule that a wife was incompetent or disqualified … The case is, however clearly on point and is necessarily overruled.

Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hospital, Inc.

502 Pa. 241 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1983

active fault has been established in the prior action. … The hospital clearly owed a duty to James to prevent him from carrying out precisely that action which he accomplished.

Commonwealth v. Woelper

3 Serg. & Rawle 29 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1817

I think, therefore, that the inspectors were right in taking the votes of aliens qualified according to the charter. 4. … The book of bye-laws was produced by the defendants themselves, on notice given; and although that alone would not, as against a stranger, supersede the necessity of the usual proof of authenticity, it is clearly otherwise

McLaughlin v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.

465 Pa. 104 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 1975

But the rules thus established do not restrict the general power of the courts; the power which establishes such rules in the first instance also enables the courts to disregard such rules and adopt the methods most suitable … I The first amendment right to gather news is clearly established in Pennsylvania. McMullan v.

Allegheny Inspection Service, Inc. v. North Union Township

600 Pa. 245 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2009

code official or third-party agency to act on its behalf only for “administration and enforcement” of the PCCA; at the same time, [the Registration Subsection] of the PCCA provides that a municipality may not prohibit a qualified … The Townships and Third-Party agencies highlight that the legislature is considering an amendment to the Registration *260 Provision that would clearly provide for the Commonwealth Court’s conclusion.

Brandywine Lanes, Inc. v. Pittsburgh National Bank

437 Pa. 499 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1970

The giving of a bill of sale some two years later, after the alleys were removed by appellants, hardly qualifies to transform an assignment of a judgment into a sale of collateral. … Brandywine clearly had these, by virtue of its assignment of the judgment for possession and the underlying security interest in the property.

Commonwealth v. Kean

382 Pa. Super. 587 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1989

The federal courts have clearly established that the fourth amendment does not provide a remedy for the victims of unreasonable private searches. See, e.g., Coolidge v. … firmly established than in a private residence.

Commonwealth v. Becker

366 Pa. Super. 54 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 1987

In view of the intent behind ARD, and the provision requiring prosecution upon ARD revocation, mere acceptance of ARD should not qualify the defendant for second offender status. … The better rule, applicable solely to ARD revocation cases, would clearly be to stay the proceedings on the later charge until the final disposition of the ARD revocation charges.

Commonwealth v. Wheeler

518 Pa. 103 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1988

Despite testimonial assertions by Wheeler of his *109 innocence, the Commonwealth's evidence clearly justified the jury in finding him guilty of first-degree murder. … (emphasis added) in establishing a "significant history."

In Re: Nom. of Michael W. Beyer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2015

Beyer to identify clearly his occupation, and the candidate knew his petition would likely promote misinformation on that very point. Yet, he implemented an “explain only if asked” approach. … Beyer’s nomination petitions bore a facial defect, as he was not yet qualified to claim the present occupational or professional status of “lawyer.”

Travitzky v. Travitzky

369 Pa. Super. 65 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1987

We also agree with appellant that the record in the case at bar clearly shows that the proper procedure was not followed. … Appellant’s uncontested testimony established that on the date of the contempt hearing, she was unemployed.

Thomas v. Duquesne Light Co.

376 Pa. Super. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1988

The rules regarding a compulsory nonsuit are well established. … Rawlings, 612 F.2d 135, 143 (3d Cir. 1979) (licensee who sold beer to minors not immune from liability merely because delivery signed for by adult).

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Corbett v. Griffin

596 Pa. 549 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 2008

See id. at 417, 280 A.2d at 372-73 (“Without suggesting that [the Shaver ] definition is sufficiently inclusive for the modern era, we have no hesitation in holding that the federal crime of using the mails to defraud is clearly … Subsections (a) through (c) of Article V, Section 18 establish the Judicial Conduct Board, the Court of Judicial Discipline, and procedures for review of the decisions of that tribunal.

Commonwealth v. Flor, R., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2021

Evidence tending to establish a criminal defendant’s innocence”). … [J-120-2019] - 25  is clearly erroneous.

Cowan v. Pennsylvania Plate Glass Co.

184 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1898

Stoner receiver; he duly qualified, gave bond, and took into his actual possession all the personal property, real estate, accounts and dioses in action of the corporation. … Therefore we are of opinion the court below was clearly right in its conclusion as follows: “We need not stop to discuss the auditor’s reasons for making the distribution, as we are of opinion the judgments recovered after