Case law

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.”

Willcox v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance

357 Pa. 581 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1947

and executive departments of the government requires that every reasonable presumption be made in favor of the validity of a statute, and that, before an act may be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, it must clearly … But the generality of the Pennsylvania act does not admit of the adoption of such a qualified construction if common law principles of interpretation are to be applied.

In Re: Dawn Segal, Judge

173 A.3d 603 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2017

In June 2014, she testified before a federal ■ grand jury without any promise of immunity or legal protection. See-id. ¶¶ 9-16. … Based on the content of the conversations- and Appellant’s various admissions, the CJD deemed such knowledge to have been readily established.

Barium Steel Corp. v. Wiley

379 Pa. 38 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1954

It is well established that a corporation is a distinct and separate entity, irrespective of the persons who own all its stock. … Thus, a corporation may not, for its own immunity, invoke a disregard of its separate entity or that of a subsidiary: Homestead Borough v.

WESTON v. Reading Co.

445 Pa. 182 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1971

in accord with the chancellor that the ICC possesses primary jurisdiction over the issue of the acquisition and exercise of control over Reading by the C&O—B&O system with respect to two of the issues 13 appellants are qualified … Rev. 436 (1954). 14 *200 The doctrine is clearly applicable to tbe present litigation.

Jameson v. Pittsburgh

381 Pa. 366 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1955

It was urged against him that he could not qualify under the retirement system. … It needs no citation of authority to establish that contracts may not be altered unilaterally.

Commonwealth v. McCabe

303 Pa. Super. 245 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1982

that the incident occurred at night, that she was not wearing her eyeglasses during the incident, and that she was hiding some distance from her home during most of the incident, the myopic witness stated that she could clearly … Having reviewed the current case law of many jurisdictions and several recent law review articles concerning hypnosis, 9 the court concluded: While we do not want to establish a per se rule of inadmissibility at this time

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 .

Harrison, K. v. Health Network Lab, Aplts

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2020

Clay, 559 A.2d at 919, citing 43 P.S. §953 (“The opportunity for an individual to obtain employment for which he is qualified . . . without discrimination because of [race, color, familial status, religious creed, ancestry … The Court explained the provision clearly contemplates that, in certain cases, aggrieved parties might not invoke the PHRA procedures. Id. at 921.

In Re: Adoption of: A.L.K. Apl of: C.K.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2021

Appellees similarly argue that the trial court’s determination that Father’s efforts to achieve sobriety qualify as overcoming a barrier to the performance of parental duties is unsupported by the record. … To that end, even where the evidence clearly establishes a parent has failed to perform affirmative parental duties for a period in excess of six months as required by Section 2511(a)(1), the court “must examine the individual

In Re: Adoption of: L.A.K. Apl of: C.K.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2021

Appellees similarly argue that the trial court’s determination that Father’s efforts to achieve sobriety qualify as overcoming a barrier to the performance of parental duties is unsupported by the record. … To that end, even where the evidence clearly establishes a parent has failed to perform affirmative parental duties for a period in excess of six months as required by Section 2511(a)(1), the court “must examine the individual

Commonwealth v. Reid, A., Aplt

627 Pa. 151 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2014

The PCRA court concluded that the prosecutor’s remark was “clearly addressed to the character evidence” that Appellant submitted, and, therefore, was admissible pursuant to Commonwealth v. … Moreover, the Commonwealth contends that, because the “documents are unsworn and unwitnessed,” they do not qualify as affidavits. Id. at 45 n. 44.

Commonwealth v. Carpenter

555 Pa. 434 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1999

To show ineffectiveness, Appellant must establish that counsel could have no reasonable basis for his act or omission. … To qualify as an excited utterance a statement must be a spontaneous declaration by a person whose mind has been suddenly made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by some unexpected and shocking occurrence, which that

Commonwealth v. Gwynn

596 Pa. 398 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2008

Appellant fails to assert that this claim of trial court error qualifies as a cognizable claim under the PCRA. [11] Moreover, this Court addressed and rejected this claim of trial court error on direct appeal. … While Collins noted that the controlling reasoning on direct appeal may be dispositive, it also clearly required a fresh look in addressing derivative claims. See id.

Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Revenue

171 A.3d 682 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2017

taxable income used by the United States Internal Revenue Code, violated the Uniformity Clause because the federal definition of taxable income “already reflects the federal personal exemptions for the taxpayer and his qualified … To remove all caps and allow unlimited net loss deductions would be clearly contrary to the wishes of the General Assembly.

Bell v. Slezak

571 Pa. 333 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2002

See, e.g., 40 P.S. § 991.1803(b)(1)(B) (establishing a $300,000 "per claimant" cap on PPCIGA's obligation to pay a covered claim). … As the court correctly points out The Act clearly attempts to protect both policyholders and those with claims against policyholders from the consequences of the insolvency of the insurer by establishing an association, the

Commonwealth v. Tharp

627 Pa. 673 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2014

reviewed the medical records from Mercy Hospital, which indicated that Tausha suffered from a variety of significant physical and organic medical problems resulting from her premature birth, including severe neurologic delays, immune … Moore is clearly distinguishable, however, because the defendant in that case argued self-defense at trial, which is not mutually exclusive from the defense of diminished capacity.

McNeil v. Jordan

586 Pa. 413 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2006

See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524 (establishing a two-year statute of limitations). . … The current rule retains the "preparation” language but no longer includes the “substantially aid” qualifying language. . Effective April 16, 1979. .

In re Anonymous No. 47 D.B. 83

24 Pa. D. & C.4th 527 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1994

. *530 (3) In the 1960s [petitioner] was actively involved with the [B] Society and helped establish the [C] in 1962. … (N.T. 83.) *543 (85) [EE] testified that he believed [petitioner] was highly qualified to resume the practice of law and knew of nothing that would be detrimental to the public interest in [petitioner’s] resuming the practice

Commonwealth v. Fears, L., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2021

In acknowledgment of his facially untimely petition, Appellant alleged both avenues of relief relied on newly discovered facts, and thus [J-61-2020] - 4 qualified under the same … Clearly, the fundamental timing requirement of our statute as specified by our legislature precludes relief in Appellant’s case for multiple reasons.