Case law

Commonwealth v. Rodriquez

532 Pa. 62 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1992

Clearly, the seizure of appellant under the facts before this Court constituted an arrest. In Commonwealth v. … The inquiry is necessary because the majority concluded that "clearly, the seizure of appellant under the facts before this Court constituted an arrest."

Commonwealth v. Noel, H., Aplt.

629 Pa. 100 · 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. .

Steltz, C. v. Meyers M.D., W., Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2021

Treen was qualified as an expert “in the area of sports hernia and athletic pubalgia.” N.T., 8/1/18, a.m. session, at 28. Dr. … The Siegal Court determined such statement warranted a new trial, as it was “clearly improper,” and “conveyed to the jury something that counsel knew to be untrue.” Id. at 1277.

Commonwealth v. Aulisio

514 Pa. 84 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1987

Appellant challenges the validity of his conviction on grounds the trial court allegedly erred in permitting prospective jury members to be "death qualified." … Although I still have reservations as to the fundamental fairness of a "death qualified" jury for the reasons set forth in Commonwealth v.

Shoul, L. v. Bureau of Driver Licensing, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2017

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. … The requirements of due process have clearly been met to the extent that the legislature has acted in an area properly the subject of its police power, and has not done so arbitrarily.”); Laudenberger, 436 A.2d at 157 (citing

O'Donnell v. Philadelphia Record Co.

356 Pa. 307 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1946

The record clearly shows that the editorial in question was published from a proper motive, in a proper manner and based upon reasonable and probable cause. … jury and the court should declare the fact established as a matter of law.

Commonwealth v. Brachbill

520 Pa. 533 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1989

Accordingly, we therefore reject the contention that a violation of the intimidation provision, as provided for under section 4952, has not been established on this record. II. … By using an extension telephone, which qualifies as an “electronic, mechanical or other device,” Corporal Hoffmaster intercepted the communication between Brachbill and Musser.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Herman, J.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 2017

itself, applied the following reasoning to the federal definition of a controlled substance analogue: Despite Granberry’s contention to the contrary, the term “controlled substance analogue” in § 813 is clearly … a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto.”).

Easton Area SD, Aplt. v. Miller, R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2020

However, a conclusion that the video qualifies as an education record under FERPA does not necessarily render the video exempt from disclosure under Subsection 708(b)(1)(i) of the RTKL. … Yet, until such processes are clearly established, it appears likely that third parties’ informational privacy rights will remain merely incidental to right-to-know litigation, and protected only insofar as they are adequately

PBS Coals v. PennDOT, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2021

In contrast, the 2006 amendments “clearly established that it’s this [c]ourt’s duty to make those determinations[.]” … This is precisely the type of “speculative and conjectural” use that the caselaw holds cannot qualify as a de facto taking.

Shafer v. State Employes' Retirement Board

548 Pa. 320 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1997

In order to determine whether a person is an employee, this Court has set forth the following analysis to determine whether a worker qualifies as an employee or an independent contractor: Control of manner work is to be done … His role as a teacher, thus, clearly fulfills the statutory requirement of "service" in the field of education. *338 Where appellee's claim fails, however, is the added requirement under 71 Pa.C.S. § 5304(c)(3) that service

Commonwealth v. Steele

599 Pa. 341 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2008

Horner’s car on the day of the murders and could identify it, but was not in a position to see the occupants clearly, other than observing three elderly women and a bald black man driving. … Paul’s testimony established that the luncheon was held on June 21, 1985, and began at 12:30 p.m. She established that the meal was served around 1:00, and that all three victims were present for the meal.

In Re ML

757 A.2d 849 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2000

A dependency proceeding primarily involves two issues: (1) whether the agency can establish that the child is dependent under the existing custody arrangement, 42 Pa. … The Juvenile Act clearly provides that "[i]f the court finds that the child is not a dependent child or that the allegations of delinquency have not been established it shall dismiss the petition ...." 42 Pa.

Miller v. Gault

345 Pa. 474 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1942

Miller, “clearly appears”. … We said (p. 496) : “Clearly this was a case for the jury. . . .

Bundy v. Belin

501 Pa. 255 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1983

Each category is qualified by the words “including without limitation.” Yet the categories are not to be nullified, transformed or expanded beyond the primary concern of the section. … It is established that one of the principal means of evasion of debt ceilings by New York City was that City’s use of tax anticipation and revenue anticipation notes. Id. at 559.

PBS Coals v. PennDOT, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2021

In contrast, the 2006 amendments “clearly established that it’s this [c]ourt’s duty to make those determinations[.]” … This is precisely the type of “speculative and conjectural” use that the caselaw holds cannot qualify as a de facto taking.

Commonwealth v. McEachin

371 Pa. Super. 188 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1988

To qualify as an excited utterance, a statement must be: “A spontaneous declaration by a person whose mind has been suddenly made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by some unexpected and shocking occurrence, which … As long as the statement was clearly a product of overpowering emotion caused by a traumatic and humiliating experience, an even greater delay would not preclude introduction. Bailey, supra.

Flaherty v. Allegheny Port Authority

450 Pa. 509 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1973

The Port Authority shall obtain a qualified, independent transportation engineering firm’s evaluation of the financial and technological feasibility of the Transit Expressway Revenue Line (Skybus). . . . … While discretionary power in the hands of a municipal authority or body does not immunize it from judicial review, the scope of that review must be limited to the *517 determination of whether the exercise of discretion has

Smith v. Times Publishing Co.

178 Pa. 481 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1897

the revolution, there was power in the Supreme Court to set aside, revise, alter or modify the verdict of a jury on disputed facts, then the adoption of the same language in the constitutions of 1837 and 1874, without any qualifying … That, such evidence is admissible, may be clearly deduced from the ground itself upon which the plaintiff must rest his claim to-damages.

PA Enviro Defense Fdn, Aplt. v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2022

Accordingly, the Majority explains, we do not have to determine which of DCNR’s responsibilities qualify as trust purposes.26 I cannot agree. … The lack of any accounting obligation or restriction of the use of trust assets solely for trust purposes on the part of the Commonwealth as trustee clearly, plainly, and palpably violates the Constitution.