Case law

Commonwealth v. Tighe, P., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2020

Tighe, 195 A.3d 850 (Pa. 2018) (per curiam) (respectively qualifying the first and second questions “for reasons other than waiver or forfeiture of [the right to self-representation],” and “absent waiver or forfeiture of … The Plurality’s conclusory footnote clearly comprises dicta because it pertains to a legal question that has no ultimate bearing upon its analysis. Cf. Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Vandivner, J., Aplt.

634 Pa. 482 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2015

To qualify for relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2); that his … Accordingly, our standard of review is whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the legal conclusion drawn therefrom is clearly erroneous.

A.M.D. v. A.L.R, Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2023

interlocutory appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 312, the [J-27-2023] - 11 Superior Court explained that immediate review would only be warranted if the order qualified … Based upon our reading, however, Troxel does not establish that Parents have a right to be free from custody litigation brought against them by third parties.

Commonwealth, Aplt v. Bardo, M.

629 Pa. 352 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2014

established precedent”). … Also, clearly from the history alcohol/substance abuse chronic and long-term alcoholism were there and present (N.T. PCRA p. 528).

Jones v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMP. BD., ETC.

513 Pa. 45 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1986

. 63 , 92 L.Ed. 347 (1947), section 3 of the Unemployment Compensation Law [1] *53 provides an independent substantive basis, in addition to those set forth in section 402, [2] for the denial of benefits to an otherwise qualified … I would further hold that, for the latter to constitute "fault," it must rise to the same level of culpability as is established by section 402(e) and the cases interpreting that section.

Kinney-Lindstrom v. Medical Care Availability & Reduction of Error Fund

621 Pa. 52 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2013

The MCARE Fund further contends there is no support in logic or case law establishing that Dr. S. owed separate duties of care to each fetus. … She concludes that if the Legislature intended to change the existing case law on indemnification of delay damages and post-judgment interest, it would have used language that clearly conveyed such intention.

Sicilia, V. v. API Roofers Adv. Program (WCAB)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2024

Claimant maintains that the WCJ was clearly attempting to define the compensable injury, not Claimant’s impairment, and, in so doing, ignored Duffey. … testimony of the IRE physician-evaluator, who explained that the whole-person impairment rating “did not account for [the] asserted work-related adjustment disorder or post-traumatic stress syndrome” because he was not qualified

Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, M., Aplt

626 Pa. 512 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2014

Accordingly, a statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution. … We hold that, as imposed here, the mandatory fine clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. III.

Commonwealth v. Emge

381 Pa. Super. 139 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1988

Mannarino could properly withstand a challenge, based upon the offer of proof, an examination of the expert's actual testimony establishes that a new trial must be granted. The trial court permitted Dr. … On the facts here presented, however, we believe that the expert testimony proffered was clearly damaging to the defendant's right to a fair trial. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of sentence and award a new trial.

Commonwealth v. Gibson

597 Pa. 402 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2008

AEDPA, she explained, limited federal habeas review of state convictions "to the law as it was `clearly established' by our precedents at the time of the state court's decision." … If the law were indeed clearly established by our decisions "as of the time of the relevant state-court decision," Williams v.

PA State Police v. ACLU of PA, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2023

PSP appealed, and a three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court reversed. 7 The court opined that, while establishing the likelihood of a threat required more than speculation, the agency was not required to establish a … Cmwlth. 2019) (remanding to determine whether a fire company qualified as a local agency under the RTKL); Dep’t of Labor and Indus. v. Earley, 126 A.3d 355, 358 (Pa.

Tate v. Hoover

345 Pa. 19 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1942

The pleadings hereinbefore quoted in this opinion clearly tell us what the issues are. … Tate, Jr., was elected trustee of the estate of Post and Company, bankrupt, and qualified and the Referee in Bankruptcy then ordered the bringing of this action.

Pharoah v. Lapes

391 Pa. Super. 585 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1990

It is well established that the scope of appellate review in child support cases is very narrow. The appellate court will disturb a trial court's findings only when the judge has clearly abused his or her discretion. … Id. [1] Further, although a college education is increasingly being viewed as a necessity, the duty to support a college-bound student in his or her majority is a qualified one. Id.

Commonwealth v. Snyder

599 Pa. 656 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2009

Arenella predated Trombetta, Youngblood, Deans, and Fisher , and is clearly no longer controlling authority on this issue. … Briefs for Appellees," rather than citing to both, where the same language appears in both filings. [5] That amendment reads, in pertinent part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

Kramer, S. v. Nationwide Insurance, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2024

In their motion for summary judgment, Parents averred that there was “no dispute” that “Decedent suffered bodily injury from an accident” while on their property and, therefore, that Decedent’s bodily injury qualified as … Generally, “[w]rongful death damages are established for the purpose of compensating the spouse, children, or parents of a deceased for pecuniary loss they have sustained as a result of the death of the decedent.”

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Ivery, B.

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 M 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. Leninsky

360 Pa. Super. 49 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1986

GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST 1) License and Registration The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified are permitted to operate motor vehicles, and that their vehicles are fit for safe … In our view, Tarbert clearly controls this case. Therefore, we concur only in the result.

Exton Quarries, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

425 Pa. 43 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1967

[Exton] has not established a nonconforming use. "6. That . . . [Exton] is not entitled to a variance." … The language of footnotes 6 and 14 seems clearly intended to make the powers granted in the Enabling Act broad and flexible.

Commonwealth v. Taylor

583 Pa. 170 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2005

The evidence adduced at trial established the following. … Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 , 107 S.Ct. 2906 , 97 L.Ed.2d 336 (1987), the Supreme Court qualified its holding in Smith .

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Archie, B.

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 M 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