Case law

Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer

500 Pa. 16 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1982

As is usual in such complaints, isolated portions of the charge are extracted with materially qualifying sentences or phrases conveniently omitted.” Slip opinion at 13. … In meeting this burden, the Commonwealth must prove every element necessary to establish murder of the first degree and every element necessary to establish one or more aggravating circumstance which the legislature has determined

McGarrity v. Commonwealth

311 Pa. 436 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1933

L. 814, providing, inter alia, for the acquiring, taking and condemnation of real estate for the site and approaches of the Delaware River Bridge, did not clearly express in its title a purpose to impose on the Commonwealth … The damage sustained by plaintiff in the Memorial Bridge case was clearly what is known in law as “consequential damage.” None of plaintiff’s property was taken away from him.

Miller v. Keystone Insurance

535 Pa. 531 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1994

While the insurers were still adjusting the plaintiff's claims, the defense of interspousal immunity was abolished. … Notwithstanding the insurers's representations and assurances, the insurers did not advise the plaintiff of the potential tort claim or of the fact that the claim was clearly covered by the policies.

Commonwealth v. Travaglia

502 Pa. 474 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1983

It was established that the automobile was registered to one William Nicholls of Pittsburgh who had recently disappeared. … At best, such factors would render it completely arbitrary whether a contemporaneous offense would qualify as an aggravating circumstance under subsection (d)(10).

Commonwealth v. Mahaney

373 Pa. Super. 129 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1988

The technician was qualified for his position by the hospital and withdrew the blood under police supervision. … The majority's conclusion that the Commonwealth was entitled to the inference that Mahaney was driving while intoxicated clearly reaches well beyond the proven facts and logical inferences therefrom.

Commonwealth v. Harvey

345 Pa. Super. 237 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1985

Furthermore, the burden of establishing that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt must be borne by the prosecution. … It is clearly improper for the prosecuting attorney “to express his personal belief or opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence on the guilt of the defendant.” ABA Standards § 5.8(b).

Pascal, S., Aplts v. City of Pgh ZBA

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2021

Consequently, when Justice Embry cast the deciding vote and authored the majority opinion, “he did not merely apply well-established law” but “quite possibly made new law.”45 Moreover, Justice Embry and his colleagues … These responsibilities fall to flesh-and-blood people, who are by no means immune to the same foibles that circulate in the general public.

Commonwealth v. Knupp

512 Pa. 614 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1986

The letter informed appellee that because the outstanding charges constituted his third and fourth offenses and were therefore felonies, he did not qualify for A.R.D. … Although appellee executed the waiver form concerning his Rule 1100 right without counsel, the form clearly advised appellee of his right to counsel.

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

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2024

The Court noted that Lamp “qualified” Zarlinsky by adding that a writ can remain effective provided the plaintiff has no intent to stall.22 Farinacci “subtly altered” Lamp’s holding by introducing “a good-faith effort to … This tension, exhibited most clearly in the various opinions in Witherspoon, highlights the difficulty in providing clear expectations surrounding service. Is there any better way to peel this onion?

MacKowick v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

525 Pa. 52 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1990

This product was intended to be used only by qualified electricians who would be aware of the dangers of arcing in such equipment. [2] The warning provided on the lid of the capacitor clearly instructed the user to ground … The objective "reasonable man" standard is only considered in the context of proceeding unreasonably after it has been established that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the specific defect. Ferraro, supra .

PGW v. Pa. PUC, Appeal of: SBG Mgt. Srvcs.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2021

Emphasizing that Section 7106(b) lacks any qualifier before “judgment,” PGW advocates that it cannot, by its plain terms, mean a final judgment. Id. at 27-28. … But it clearly did not do so. Instead, the plain language of Section 7106(b) provides that a docketed lien “shall be a judgment.” 53 P.S. § 7106(b).

Burger v. School Board of McGuffey School District

592 Pa. 194 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2007

See In re Petition to Recall Reese, 542 Pa. 114 , 665 A.2d 1162, 1164 (1995) (legislation's presumption of constitutionality can be rebutted where statute clearly, palpably, and plainly violates Constitution). … VI, § 7, and permits the legislature to qualify the Constitution's absolute grant of removal power. [1] This Court's decision in Buell v. Union Township School District, 395 Pa. 567 , 150 A.2d 852 (1959), is analogous.

Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth

161 A.3d 911 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2017

Some charters address the people’s rights to fish and hunt, often qualified by the government’s right to regulate these activities for the purposes of conservation. See, e.g., Ky, Const. § 255A (2012); Vt. Const. Ch. … established public trust principles applicable to Section 27.

Com v. UPMC, Appeal of Com. by A.G.

208 A.3d 898 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2019

To make more moderate or less sweeping; to reduce in degree or extent; to limit, qualify, or moderate"). … This is a fact question not suitable for resolution on preliminary objections to a pleading, which may be sustained only when the requested relief is clearly unavailable as a matter of law. Ins.

Commonwealth v. Rios

591 Pa. 583 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2007

In order to qualify for PCRA relief, the appellant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the following statutorily enumerated factors: (i) A violation of … In this matter the distinction between “hesitate” and “restrain before acting” is de minimis and clearly such a subtle variation in phrasing would not be an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

Bunn's Appeal

105 Pa. 49 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1884

When it subjects assignees to all the liabilities of subscribers, and gives them all their privileges and immunities, it simply confers a status. … I conclude, therefore, and the: authorities clearly tend to show, that such is the prá-ctice. ..¡..i'-- ..... In the case, of Wilbur, assignee, v.

Com., Dep v. Cromwell Tp., Huntingdon Cty.

613 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2011

This enforcement [13] matter clearly was not originally commenced in the Commonwealth Court as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 723(a). See also Gossman v. … It is a well-established principle of law that this Court will not decide moot questions.

Commonwealth v. Jones

542 Pa. 464 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1995

This information alone fails to satisfy the requirements for establishing a prima facie case. … Thus, evidence clearly supported a finding of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(10). Furthermore, in accordance with Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. McCloskey

443 Pa. 117 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 1971

He can determine whether a colorable claim of testimonial privilege is presented, and can inform the defendant of the extent of his immunity from prosecution for prior offenses. … Yet, its inquisitorial powers were clearly established in this Commonwealth by 1791. See McNair’s Petition, supra at 57 , 187 Atl. at 503 . See McNair's Petition, supra, 324 at 57-58, 187 Atl. at 503 .

A Special Touch v. UC Tax Services, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2020

just the employer, as part of an independent trade” in overcoming the statutory presumption of employment)).10 Based on the foregoing, and because both prongs of Subsection 4(l)(2)(B) must be met for a worker to qualify … These observations, however, were clearly made in relation to the Court’s analysis of the discrete issue before the Court noted above, namely, whether the business of the drivers was established “independently” from the