Case law

Berrington v. Berrington

534 Pa. 393 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1993

This allocation is achieved by means of a "qualified domestic relations order" (QDRO). The Act specifically exempts qualified domestic relations orders from the peremption provisions of ERISA. … In such a case, the increase in value after the date of separation for stock purchased before separation would clearly be marital property. [10] While I acknowledge that Mr.

Exeter Twp. v. PLRB, Teamsters Local Union No. 429.

211 A.3d 752 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2019

field, our Court opined that an appellate court “will not lightly substitute its judgment for that of a body selected for its expertise whose experience and expertise make it better qualified … In light of the fact that the terms of Section 614 of the MPC do not clearly identify a zoning officer as a management level employee, reliance on Section 390-82 of the Exeter Township Code, which sets forth the duties

Commonwealth v. Puksar

597 Pa. 240 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2008

In fact, the defense experts opined to the contrary — that appellant clearly understood the nature of the proceedings, but had given up on the *277 system. … The verdict slip also clearly provided that the aggravating circumstances were to be found unanimously. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Wholaver, E., Aplt.

177 A.3d 136 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2018

Yet, the court clearly granted Appellant an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Id. … We further observe that trial courts are free to use their own expressions as long as the concepts at issue are clearly and accurately presented to the jury. Id.

Madison Construction Co. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance

557 Pa. 595 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1999

First, the language of the exclusion provision clearly states that "fumes" are regarded as a "pollutant." … Moreover, I am concerned that the majority's "plain meaning" approach in interpreting the pollution exclusion establishes a dangerous precedent which will yield absurd results.

Starling, W. v. Lake Meade Prop., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 2017

must generally have a foundation in pre-existing evidence of fraud, accident or mistake,” except when it is introduced “not to contradict or vary, but to explain the contract, as when something is omitted . . . so as to qualify … Second, in Allen we clearly imposed the burden of establishing the necessary fee upon Allen as plaintiff rather than merely negating the fee of others, which we never endeavored to ascertain.

In Re Estate of Geyer

516 Pa. 492 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1987

A substantial portion of this wealth was composed of the family business, but the decedent also had extensive real estate holdings. 3 He was established in the community and enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle. … We shall therefore eliminate the confusion and conflicts resulting from different expressions of the applicable standards and principles by stating clearly and more *501 definitely the applicable standards and principles

Johnson, G. v. Lansdale Boro, Aplts.

637 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2016

After citing the aforementioned statutory language, and without further elaboration, this Court stated, [t]he statute clearly gives the Court of Common Pleas full discretion to affirm, reverse or *29 modify the action of … appear to dispute that the Commission’s ruling constitutes an "adjudication,” which is defined as "[a]ny final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities

Fritz v. Wright

589 Pa. 219 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2006

A dissenter stripped of his or her voting power does not have the same voice as a qualified, voting juror. … Under this rule, after each question, jurors would have to ask who among them was qualified to answer subsequent questions, a determination that might not always be straightforward.

Lancaster County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

633 Pa. 294 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2015

The court noted it was necessary'for the Union to establish both elements in order to establish a ’ violation of Section 1201(a)(3) óf PERA. 4 With regard to the first issue, the court held an employer is vicariously liable … agency possess in its relevant field, our Court [has] opined that an appellate court “will not lightly substitute its judgment for that of a body selected for its expertise whose experience' and expertise make it better qualified

McKEE BY McKEE v. Evans

380 Pa. Super. 120 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1988

Appellants argue that admission of this testimony was error because it called for rendition by a qualified expert. … The trial record fails to demonstrate that Officer Vallone was properly qualified as an expert witness.

Costack v. Pennsylvania R. R.

376 Pa. 342 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1954

Clearly? A. Yes, yon can hear them pretty clearly. Q. And you had lived there many years before this accident. I think you are a Sergeant in the Air Force? A. Yes, sir.” … Our own Court has spoken very clearly on this type of testimony. In the case of Kindt v.

Commonwealth v. Cox

603 Pa. 223 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2009

This clearly is not the law and the cases cited by Appellant are distinguishable. … The prosecutor clearly was not referring to Appellant, and trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to object to the use of the word “monsters.”

Williams, L., Aplts v. City of Phila

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2018

Id. at 575, 577, 274 A.2d at 527, 529.12 Notably as well, in the tax immunity setting, federal courts have been resolutely instructed to avoid the “venturesome” and “daunting” inquiry into economic incidence. … VIII, §2(b)(2) (authorizing the Legislature to establish a special class or classes of “subjects of taxation” for exemption purposes).

Pignetti, G & J, h/w, Aplts. v. PennDOT

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2025

Commonwealth,22 specifically with regard to “non-contiguous tracts.”23 Thus, the court reasoned, the General Assembly clearly intended that Morris should inform the application of now- Section 705 to noncontiguous parcels … They argue that the Joint State Government Commission’s reference to Morris stands only for the proposition that Section 1-605 codified the common-law concept of plottage for qualifying noncontiguous parcels.

V.L. Rendina, Inc. v. City of Harrisburg

595 Pa. 407 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2007

(internal quotation marks omitted)). [9] As a final matter, we recognize that this appeal has been framed around the issue of whether the job site trailer constituted a sufficient business presence to qualify as a "base of … Instead, I would identify this tax as one that embodies aspects of both business privilege taxation and transaction taxation, one that has been clearly so structured since its enactment, and one that operates, and properly

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Moody, K.

633 Pa. 335 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2015

Concluding punishment for the contemptuous conduct did not qualify for the exception to due process requirements, the Court noted, “The narrow exception ... includes only charges of misconduct, in open court, in the presence … Commonwealth’s final issue, i.e., whether a defendant is entitled to counsel and to call witnesses during summary proceedings for direct criminal contempt, we conclude without hesitation that the precedent outlined above clearly

Commonwealth v. Holt

350 Pa. 375 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1944

His testimony shows clearly that he was covering up what he thought was a gross mistake and for reasons of his own. His testimony, to say the least, is not reliable. … The trial court touched upon this subject in its qualified affirmance of defendant’s seventh point, but in a way that was confusing and of little or no help to the jury.

Commonwealth v. Judge

591 Pa. 126 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2007

Thus, the Commonwealth explains, the Legislature clearly intended that the writ of habeas corpus would continue to exist only in situations, unlike the present matter, where there is no remedy under the PCRA. … The Third Circuit dismissed the case in a nonprecedential decision on the ground that there was no subject matter jurisdiction over the civil action against a foreign state under either the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc. v. Commonwealth

625 Pa. 55 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2014

Greenwood contends that there is a “direct, discernible nexus between the qualifying slot machine play and the award.” Greenwood Brief at 8. … Arguing that the regulation is not clearly erroneous, the Commonwealth asserts that we cannot declare it invalid.