Case law

Grimaud v. Commonwealth

581 Pa. 398 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2005

Article XI, § 1 establishes the procedure for the General Assembly’s proposal of amendments and the electorate’s adoption, requiring that “[w]hen two or more amendments shall be submitted they shall be voted upon separately … Indeed, it is hard to imagine an amendment that would not have some arguable effect on another provision; clearly the framers knew amendments would occur and provided a means for that to happen.

Commonwealth v. Lee

594 Pa. 266 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2007

observed, “Although neither exhaustive nor dispositive, this list of factors has proved helpful in considering whether a civil, remedial mechanism nevertheless provides for sanctions so punitive as to transform what was clearly … In Smith, the High Court's analysis of the legislature's intent was far lengthier than our prior analyses have been on that question under Pennsylvania law evidently because the Alaska legislature’s intent was not as clearly

Commonwealth v. Laventure

586 Pa. 348 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2006

Additionally, commencement of a prosecution may occur by other means established by general rule *352 of court. See id.; 42 Pa.C.S. § 5503(b). … an actual threshold of particularity to permit identification, Grossman clearly treated the phrase as an enhancement to (and not a dilution of) the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Commonwealth v. Taylor, P., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2019

a post-conviction claim be premised upon a violation of rights occurring at trial, nor is there any suggestion in the PCRA itself or in this Court’s precedent that alleged errors occurring in the appellate process are immune … We have explained this language “demonstrates quite clearly that the General Assembly intended that claims that could be brought under [J-36-2019] - 3 the PCRA must be brought under

PA Enviro Defense Fdn, Aplt. v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2022

In considering this question, the Court observed that Pennsylvania trust law clearly provided that a trustee has a duty to deal impartially with all beneficiaries. … We further observe that our nascent Section 27 jurisprudence has not explored what activities qualify as trust purposes.

Commonwealth v. Appel

547 Pa. 171 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 1997

Thus, contrary to Appel’s recent claims of CIA delusions, Appel’s statements to his girlfriend before these murders clearly exhibited that a desire to obtain money motivated him. … When two qualified psychiatrists find a defendant competent, and where the defendant insists he is competent, we will not hold that stand-by counsel should conduct an extensive investigation to uncover evidence of incompetency

Mitchell Partners, L.P. v. Irex Corp.

617 Pa. 423 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2012

Initially, the majority recognized that Section 1105 “clearly imposes some restrictions on the relief available to a dissenting shareholder outside of the appraisal remedy proceeding!!]” Id. at 209 . … It is also well established elsewhere, and should pertain in Pennsylvania, that mere inadequacy in price is not sufficient to implicate the exception. See generally 15 Fletcher Cyc.

Duffey v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Trola-Dyne, Inc.)

638 Pa. 55 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2017

From our point of view, this line of argument reductio ad absurdum understates the role of the permanency threshold for impairments (such that a cough or a cold would not qualify), see 77 P.S. § 511.2(8)(ii), as well as the … Cherry, M.D., dated Dec. 9, 2011, in Duffy, No. 3485314, at 12-13 (describing the ongoing pain syndrome); id. at 14 ("I felt that he had, as was clearly obvious, the electrical injury and that this subsequently evolved into

Thompson v. Goldman

382 Pa. 277 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1955

It had no beauty, it did not qualify for astronomical purposes. It had only one object, only one reason for existence, and that was to serve as a safeguard. … This disregards what the record so clearly shows, namely, that the railing which Mr. Carr examined in February, 1953, was not the one which gave way in August, 1952.

Commonwealth v. Spotz

616 Pa. 164 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2012

Ragusea concluded as follows during his penalty phase testimony: [Appellant] was clearly competent to stand trial. There are criteria that we use to evaluate that, and he was clearly competent to stand trial. … Gelles’s opinion establishes the claims in this sub-issue.

Commonwealth v. Gillespie

333 Pa. Super. 576 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1985

We do not believe that this case readily lends itself to the analysis established in Linkletter . … Clearly the evidence at appellant's trial established beyond any conscionable doubt that whoever killed Gilmour specifically intended to kill him.

Commonwealth v. Roxberry

381 Pa. Super. 314 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1988

The law regarding the defense of alibi and the duty of a trial court to instruct a jury thereon are well established in this Commonwealth. … Clearly, the appellant was not so far removed from the scene of the series of rapes as to "render it impossible for him to be the guilty party." The appellant was within a few city blocks *323 of the crime scene.

Freeze v. Donegal Mutual Insurance

504 Pa. 218 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1983

Further, the No-Fault Act provides a formula for establishing the probable annual income of persons who have not previously earned income from work. 40 P.S. § 1009.205(c), (d)(C). … Clearly it should be assumed that the Legislature did not intend such an unreasonable result. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1). [1] See our recent decision in Chesler v.

Merscorp, Inc. v. Del. Cnty.

207 A.3d 855 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2019

The Majority's invocation of this principal of statutory construction is in error, as the second sentence of *874 section 351 does not in any way limit, modify or qualify the language of the first sentence of the statute. … As history teaches, private ventures can fail financially or otherwise collapse, no matter how big or well established.

Frick's Estate

277 Pa. 242 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1923

the property is situated, if governed by the common law, generally recognize the law of the domicil as determining the succession, it may be said that, in a practical sense at least, the law of the domicil is needed to establish … S. 309, 313 ); but there is nothing appearing in the legislation of either New York or Massachusetts denying or qualifying the right claimed by this Commonwealth.

Mohn, D., Aplt. v. Bucks Co. Republican Committee

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2021

[J-36-2021] - 3 office holder (including a committeeperson) who: is not a qualified Republican elector; has supported a candidate for election in opposition to any nominee of the Republican Party in a general election; … A reading of the act clearly reveals that the familiar distinction between party officers and public officers is expressly observed.”

Lincoln Philadelphia Realty Associates I v. Board of Revision of Taxes

563 Pa. 189 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2000

Consolidated Statutes, which governs administrative law and procedure, defines “adjudication” as “[a]ny final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities … Department of Transp., 495 Pa. 514, 520 , 434 A.2d 1209, 1212 (1981) (observing that a decision of specific application, clearly affecting property rights, is unquestionably an adjudication).

Caldwell, J. v. Jaurigue, P., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2024

§5337 in the event of a qualifying change of residence. See id. Father appealed, challenging the trial court’s determination Jaurigue stood in loco parentis to Child. See Jaurigue v. … [A]n individual who establishes by clear and convincing evidence [certain factors.]” 23 Pa.C.S. §5324.

C.G. v. J.H.

193 A.3d 891 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2018

Therefore, she is clearly not a parent under any bases that have been recognized by our jurisprudence. 11 *905 C.G. contends our case law stands for the broad proposition that parentage can be established by intent in situations … However, this potential for misconduct *911 does not render the actions of the person seeking in loco parentis status immune from review following a separation.

Commonwealth v. Cox, Russell, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2020

Thus, to prove that a person is intellectually disabled (or not), “a [properly qualified] expert presented by either party may testify as to [intellectual disability] under either classification system.” … We noted that such reliance “clearly [is] erroneous in light of Moore.” Id.