Case law

Adam Eidemiller, Inc. v. State Highway & Bridge Authority

408 Pa. 195 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1962

In establishing Authority with its intimate interrelationship with Department, the legislature clearly intended that it was to come within the meaning of the *201 “Commonwealtli” as used in the Act of 1937 (72 PS §§4651-1 … The jurisdiction of Board is clearly restricted to claims arising out of contracts involving the Commonwealth or its instrumentalities.

Commonwealth v. Byrd

490 Pa. 544 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 1980

Zerbst, 98 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1938) (diplomatic immunity). And, indeed, it is established that where the other alleged co-conspirators are unapprehended, Rosenthal v. … Finally, independent evidence established that the two men then fled together.

Reuss Estate

422 Pa. 58 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1966

Just what that offer was has not been established by admissible evidence.” … The balance of 29 drawings were clearly not qualified for admission. Claimant then produced the oral expert testimony of a professional engineer, K. W. Holt.

Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Marich

542 Pa. 226 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1995

Officer Jenkins charged Appel *228 lees with killing two ducks 1 over the limit of waterfowl established under Section 2102 of the Game and Wildlife Code, 34 Pa.C.S. § 2102. … We concluded that the procedures of the board clearly created an unconstitutional intermingling of the prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions in a single entity. Id. at 547 , 605 A.2d at 1210 .

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Publicker Commercial Alcohol Co.

347 Pa. 555 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1943

And we must not overlook the well-established principle, now section 51 of the. … Section 1, supra, clearly says “That this entire act is an exercise of the police power of this Commonwealth . . .”

Lance v. Wyeth

624 Pa. 231 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2014

Accordingly, its position must rest upon some source of authority establishing an already existing, special rule immunizing pharmaceutical companies in the negligence arena. … The company, however, omits material, qualifying language from the quotation.

Commonwealth v. Buehl

540 Pa. 493 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 1995

Appellant then requested that the Commonwealth grant Dwyer immunity. The Commonwealth refused. Appellant requested that the trial court order that immunity be granted. This request was also refused. … Such a strategic decision clearly provides a reasonable basis for counsel’s action.

Commonwealth v. Belgrave, J., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2026

Such is the case with grants of immunity,” where the grant of immunity “is coextensive with the scope of the privilege.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 230 A.3d 1050, 1065 (Pa. 2020) (quoting, in part, U.S. v. … But we further conclude that the Commonwealth has not established that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Re: Estate of W. Herold; Apl of: Univ of Pgh.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2025

[J-28-2024] [MO: Todd, C.J.] - 4 industry support was contingent upon the prospect of immunity from tort liability.2 This century-old guarantee of immunity survives to this day in Section 303(a) of the Act, which states … (“Having sacrificed its common law defenses, the employer faces increased and almost certain liabilities; it is thus reasonable that at least the time frame within which such liability may accrue is established clearly.”)

Commonwealth v. Maguigan

323 Pa. Super. 317 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1984

Second, another provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 7-102(B)(1), provides: (B) A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that: (1) His client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated … This alone establishes that the interest of justice is threatened.

Quigley v. Thompson

211 Pa. 107 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1905

While the general principles applicable to the subject are clearly defined, it is in practice often difficult to determine the exact limits of proper cross-examination. … The whole trend of the examination in chief of this witness Avas to establish facts and circumstances Avhich would make the defendant answerable on the ground that the negligence alleged Avas that of his servant acting within

Harrisburg Sunday Movie Petition Case

352 Pa. 635 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 1945

The court pertinently points out that “Only by applying the provisions of the Election Code to this determination [with respect to Sunday motion picture shows] is an orderly procedure established. … On the contrary we find that it is clearly implied, if not clearly expressed, in the applicable statute, that all the safeguards the law has placed around nomination petitions in order to insure their genuineness, have also

Harvey v. Susquehanna Coal Co.

201 Pa. 63 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 1902

Lippincott, 116 Pa. 472 , are relied upon for its immunity from liability. In the former case the injury to the plaintiff resulted from the defendants’ natural and lawful use of the land itself. … If the appellees ought to recover, no other measure can give them just compensation, for, if they have been wronged by the appellant, they are clearly entitled not only to a restoration of their properties to their former

Board of Public Education v. Ransley

209 Pa. 51 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1904

L. 617, established a system of common school education for all the counties of the commonwealth. … A review of constitutional provisions and legislative enactments clearly shows that the state has regarded the education of its children as one of its duties and functions, the performance of which it has as yet delegated

Norton v. Glenn

580 Pa. 212 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2004

Yet, the high Court has not declared that the media, because of their special role in our democracy, enjoy a blanket immunity from suit. … In fact, it has most clearly stated that the First Amendment does not confer this type of protection upon the media.

Retirement Board v. McGovern

316 Pa. 161 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1934

There is, however, no “may” in this act regarding the subject; the establishment of the fund and the payments thereto by the county and its employees are all mandatory. … The section does not grant any special privilege or immunity not heretofore recognized as proper.

Commonwealth v. Couch

209 Pa. 354 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1904

L. 1017, a special system “ for the collection of state, county, poor and military taxes ” was established for the county of Bedford. By the Act of February 27, 1872, P. … The single question ■in the present case is whether the local system thus established is repealed by the Act of June 6, 1893, P. L. 333.

Christy Case

362 Pa. 347 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1949

Ed. 442 (1872)], it was held that the right to practise law in the state courts was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States; that the right to control and regulate the granting of license to practice … “In case an otherwise qualified applicant is denied admission to the bar of the county oh the ground of a lack of the requisite moral qualifications, he or she shall have-a right to a hearing on that issue before the county

Wise, Aplt. v. Huntingdon Cnty. Housing Devlp Corp

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2021

Wise claims that, in doing so, the court came to the “clearly nonsensical” conclusion that “the earth’s natural rotation around the sun causing darkness transcends and thus supersedes any and all dangerous conditions created … HACH also contends that the court appropriately distinguished Floyd and Peterson on the basis that they involved interior lighting and concerned whether that lighting qualified as fixtures, and, if so, were a dangerous

LLMD of Michigan, Inc. v. Jackson-Cross Co.

559 Pa. 297 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1999

was well established in English common law. … Differences of opinion will not suffice to establish liability of an expert witness for professional negligence.