Case law

Seidenbender v. Charles's administrators

4 Serg. & Rawle 151 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 1818

It clearly is within the letter of the enacting clause. … If it was first received this would establish the priority. All was riot and confusion-; and apprehensions were entertained, that in the struggle, blood might be shed, and lives lost.

Commonwealth v. Columbia Investment Corp.

457 Pa. 353 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 1974

The prosecutor’s dissatisfaction with appellees’ answers does not establish that evidence sufficient to indict existed. 12 Appellees would have us hold that when a potential defendant decides that the prosecuting authorities … The court found that prior to testifying before a grand jury, petitioners, who were virtual defendants, had signed waiver of immunity forms without being advised of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

Commonwealth v. Birdsong

611 Pa. 203 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2011

He claims the Commonwealth failed to disclose: (1) Commonwealth witness Andre Kinard was offered immunity from unrelated criminal charges in exchange for his identification testimony against appellant; (2) the Commonwealth … Appellant also claims Brezeal could have impeached Yianna Pannell, who identified appellant as her rapist; Brezeal would have stated Pannell was confused about who raped her and could not recall the event clearly.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Margiotti v. Cunningham

337 Pa. 289 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 1939

Both assumptions are, in my opinion, clearly fallacious. The initial fallacy lies in failing to give to the words of the Act their plain meaning. … But clearly this is not the law.

Commonwealth v. Bank of Pennsylvania

3 Watts & Serg. 184 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1842

The bank was first established under the provisions of an Act passed the 30th of March 1793. … A ^proviso is generally introduced for the purpose of qualifying or explaining the enacting part, and never, I take it, in any case with a view of destroying or defeating the operation of it altogether.

Commonwealth v. Garcia

478 Pa. 406 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1978

Erroneously admitted evidence is harmless if there is other evidence to establish the same facts. Commonwealth v. … Having shown such need, the appellant should have been given the opportunity to establish by expert testimony the incompetency of the witness.

Commonwealth v. Marinelli

547 Pa. 294 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1997

The testimony at appellant’s trial established the following facts. … Appellant next argues that the trial court should have sustained his objection to a death qualified jury.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, K.

632 Pa. 36 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2015

children from drug offenses committed near schools if it was forced, as it is under Alleyne , to treat the factual determination as an element of the offense, as evinced by the low standard of proof on the Commonwealth to establish … argued that, because the information did not specify that a person was present during the burglary, and the jury was not specifically asked to render a factual determination in this regard, the burglary conviction could not qualify

Commonwealth v. Johnson

389 Pa. Super. 184 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1989

Under the Rape Shield Law, testimony in the first category of cases is clearly and without question excluded. … A careful review of the record establishes the following basis upon which the trial court determined not to admit the testimony.

Sprague v. Walter

357 Pa. Super. 570 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1986

However, the summary sheet in Applegate’s criminal extract, which was read to Walter during his interview of the record’s officer, documented this fact quite clearly. … Therefore, it cannot be argued that PNI is immune from liability for the actions of its agents/employees/reporters. See Catalfo v.

Adoption of: C.M.; Apl of: B.M.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2021

However, even where the evidence clearly establishes a parent has failed to perform affirmative parental duties for a period in excess of six months, the court “must examine the individual circumstances and any explanation … However, where the General Assembly proactively amends a statute and adds an express, unambiguous qualifier to existing criteria, we cannot simply ignore it. See 1 Pa.C.S. §1921.

A.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police

636 Pa. 403 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2016

PSP maintains any person with two or more qualifying convictions at the moment of sentencing, such as appellee, is subject to lifetime registration. … PSP develops the provision is clear and unambiguous, appel-lee pleaded guilty to two qualifying offenses, and the Commonwealth Court was obliged to look no further.

Kerr v. Pennsylvania State Board of Dentistry

599 Pa. 107 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2008

Moore was qualified as an expert and testified at the hearing. … The policy justifying the rule need not be re-established in every case where the rule potentially might apply.

Commonwealth v. Padilla

622 Pa. 449 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2013

Thus, not only did the prosecution clearly explain the evidence on which it was relying to establish the aggravating circumstances, but also the trial court instructed the jury that it was to rely on the facts of the case … O'Connor appeared to qualify for admission to the bar for this purpose. Commonwealth’s Brief at 43 and Ex. 1. This motion is not of record, but Mr.

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

550 Pa. 115 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1997

As a matter of law, I believe this evidence established that Claimants engaged in willful misconduct by wearing the T-shirts since they knowingly violated a work rule which Caterpillar indicated it would enforce. … Id. [6] The case of County of Luzerne is clearly distinguishable.

In Re Fc III

607 Pa. 45 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2010

It is now firmly established that minors are persons for purposes of constitutional due process protections. … Moreover, we uphold the constitutionality of a statute unless it “clearly, palpably, and plainly violates constitutional rights.” Ludwig, 583 Pa. at 15 , 874 A.2d at 628 .

Commonwealth v. Peterkin

511 Pa. 299 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1986

The Pennsylvania statute clearly permits consideration of such evidence. … The prosecution-proneness of death qualified jurors has been firmly established by a number of reliable studies. See Commonwealth v.

Robinson Township v. Commonwealth

623 Pa. 564 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2013

in certain cases, does not establish sovereign immunity as “constitutional rule unless the Legislature decides otherwise.”). … Furthermore, the citizens note that the corporations described in Section 3241 do not clearly qualify for the public utility exception to the rule against the taking of property for a private use.

Com. v. EM

735 A.2d 654 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1999

This testimony clearly reveals that the officer's search of Hall was outside the scope authorized by Terry. … of narcotics while conducting the actual transactions with customers and the "bagman" maintains the principal stash, if the seller is apprehended, he will be caught with only a small amount of drugs—perhaps not enough to qualify

Commonwealth v. Rigler

488 Pa. 441 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1980

The benefits of prohibiting such a practice have already been clearly explained by Mr. … This case, however, clearly does not involve a spontaneous confession.