Case law

Commonwealth v. Knight, M., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2020

The jury found that the Commonwealth established both aggravating circumstances, and that Appellant established the catch-all mitigating circumstance; it concluded, however, that the aggravators outweighed the mitigating … However, he quotes at length the expert testimony which, in his view, establishes his adaptive deficits.

Commonwealth v. Small, E., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2020

“To qualify for an exception to the PCRA's time limitations under subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner need only establish that the facts upon which the claim is based were [(1)] unknown to him and [(2)] could not have … See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion (Saylor, C.J.) at 1-2 (“Clearly, the Legislature’s prescription for diligence demonstrates its intention to incorporate a form of constructive notice into the statute, and I fail to

Commonwealth v. Carelli

377 Pa. Super. 117 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1988

This approach is clearly contradictory to our standard of review as an appellate court where suppression issues are involved. … Clearly, then, analysis must begin with a determination as to whether Officer Casciola’s view into appellant’s garage took place before or after any intrusion into a constitutionally protected area.

Commonwealth v. Sutton

485 Pa. 47 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 1979

abused its discretion in failing to inquire of the jury whether they had read anything about Bruno’s suppressed confession, stated: “The procedure to be followed to ensure a fair trial in the face of prejudicial publicity is clearly … In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors

Walters v. UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside

187 A.3d 214 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 2018

The Superior Court focused upon Section 319, concluding that it established a qualifying special relationship because Defendants knew of his diversion and substitution and knew that "he was dangerous and likely to cause bodily … As we have emphasized, the principal source of the duty we impose on UPMC is the public policy clearly embodied in federal law. The federal government's silence as to staffing agencies like Maxim speaks just as clearly.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health Education v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP

605 Pa. 269 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2010

Id.; see also id. at 831 n. 245 (questioning “how immunizing the auditors employed to help the independent directors monitor will make either stockholders or independent directors better monitors”). … Brown, 711 F.2d 1343 (7th Cir.1983), which substantially distinguished, qualified, and, at least arguably, limited Cenco. See id. at 1347-49; cf.

Commonwealth v. Flor, R., Aplt.

635 Pa. 314 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2016

Directors Ass’n, 602 Pa. 65 , 977 A.2d 1121 , 1126 (2009) (“To buttress the final order rule, we, too, have concluded the collateral order doctrine is to be construed narrowly, and we require every one of its three prongs be clearly … Supreme Court has described as a "qualified privilege for certain materials prepared by an attorney 'acting for his client in anticipation of litigation,' ” see Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Torsilieri, G.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2024

Here, the clearly expressed legislative purpose, findings, and declaration of policy all establish that, rather than intending to punish, the General Assembly desired to enact a civil, regulatory scheme. … Telephonic visits may occur after three years for registrants qualified for reduced in-person reporting. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.25(a.1).

Commonwealth v. Bennett

593 Pa. 382 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2007

It is apparent that Appellant’s allegation of ineffective assistance of his post-conviction counsel for failure to file a brief does not qualify as a “claim” that is cognizable under the express language of the PCRA, both … of a pure plain-meaning reading of the statute, Appellant’s assertion of ineffectiveness in the post-conviction appeal process also is not the subject of Section 9545(b)(l)(ii)’s exception to the one-year time bar, which clearly

Reibenstein, L. v. Barax M.D. Apl of: Conaboy

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2022

And that Section 8301 includes language clearly describing legal causation underscores that Section 513(d) does not. … Conaboy, examined Decedent.64 Reibenstein clearly was conscious of the possibility of malpractice, and had no reason at the outset to exclude any of the treating physicians from her preliminary investigations.

Ector v. Motorists Insurance Companies

391 Pa. Super. 458 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1990

. §§ 1009.101 et seq. appellant-Motorists would clearly be liable for the uninsured motorist benefits sought by appellee-Ector. … To adopt the view advanced by the Appellant would create a class of injured claimants whose benefits would be limited below those which the legislature established.

Commonwealth v. Baker

511 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1986

The Commonwealth’s case against Appellant rested solely on the testimony of Janet Fleming, an alleged accessory to the crime, who was given immunity to testify by the Commonwealth. … Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), which established a rule of law that limited venirepersons who could be excluded from a jury considering the death penalty to the following: Nothing we say today

Commonwealth v. Dickson

591 Pa. 364 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2007

The trial court clearly ruled it had “no discretion.” N.T., 3/25/02, at 5. … Thus, nothing in these newly added qualifying offenses requires us to conclude that the legislature intended to ratify existing precedent.

Commonwealth v. Baker

531 Pa. 541 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1992

Our review of the record, as noted herein, clearly established a sufficiency of evidence to support the verdict by the jury- *548 Appellant raises the following allegations of error. … Fourth, Appellant complains that the trial court refused to permit him to testify concerning the peremptory challenges of qualified black jurors.

Commonwealth v. Samuels

354 Pa. Super. 128 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 1986

We believe that, given the foregoing, the court correctly concluded that Rearick was not qualified to give his opinion as to the cause of the cut. … Appellant was clearly prejudiced here by the use of his prior misdemeanor convictions not involving the use of a deadly weapon. He received two points for a prior burglary (felony) conviction, 204 Pa.

Klar, D., Aplt. v. Dairy Farmers of America

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2023

It argues that the lower courts correctly applied existing precedent to conclude that DFA was immune from liability under both the Dram Shop Act and any common-law negligence theory. … At common law, Klar’s position is foreclosed by longstanding and well-established precedent that we find no reason to disturb.

Bowers v. Oyster

3 Pen. & W. 239 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1831

It is also clearly manifest, that the acts of assembly just mentioned, which prescribe the' mode of proceeding to enforce payment of debts due upon mortgages, and direct the probate or acknowledgment and recording of them … The principle established by this court in that case, is in favor of this construction, and against the plaintiff in error.

Lessee of Hauer v. Shitz

3 Yeates 205 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1801

Robinson, 1 Burr. 38, which was agitated for near half a century, it is clearly established, that in the construction of a will, we must first look to the general intent of the devisor, and give effect to that; and. if there … Cases in point always, *and analogous cases frequently, enable us to give effect p to the intention of a testator, when it is not inconsistent [*237 with the clearly established rules of law. *237 I proceed to state and apply

Reibenstein, L. v. Barax M.D. Apl of: Conaboy

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2022

And that Section 8301 includes language clearly describing legal causation underscores that Section 513(d) does not. … Conaboy, examined Decedent.64 Reibenstein clearly was conscious of the possibility of malpractice, and had no reason at the outset to exclude any of the treating physicians from her preliminary investigations.

In Re the Franklin Township Board of Supervisors

475 Pa. 65 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1977

The Court stated that Pennsylvania cases established the following general rules: "2. … First, the minutes do not clearly state when the Board wishes to receive bids on an item.