Case law

Commonwealth v. Holt, R., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2022

Moments later, a male who cannot be clearly identified runs on the sidewalk with Officer Shaw pursuing at a close distance. Both individuals can be seen turning into the church parking lot. … This Court determined that the defendant’s possession of a shank did not qualify as similar-weapons evidence because it was not used in the pertinent assault.

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.

Reinforced Earth Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

570 Pa. 464 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2002

In reversing, the Court considered the line of decisions that limited the powers of the NLRB, notwithstanding that the conduct of the employer in those cases clearly violated the NLRA and would ordinarily be subject to enforcement … If an unauthorized alien is ineligible for benefits under the WCA, it follows that the employer should not enjoy the immunity from suit granted by 77 P.S. § 481.

Defender Ass'n of Philadelphia Amendment of Articles of Inc.

453 Pa. 353 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 1973

Clearly, the accused, while being represented by the Defender Association, may not feel “... that they have been dealt with fairly.” Suggs, supra at 974 . … However, if we are to preserve the strength of the program, we must make it immune to political pressures and *378 make it a permanent part of our system of justice.”

Commonwealth v. Arnold

331 Pa. Super. 345 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1984

We acknowledge numerous remaining arguments; however, due to the fact that they are clearly meritless and do not carry the significance of the issues hereafter addressed, we summarily dismiss them. 3 *355 Appellant’s first … Prospective jurors can qualify, however, despite their exposure to media reports on the crime and pretrial proceedings.

Shore v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa.

389 Pa. 445 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1957

Shore was not living with her husband at the time of his demise, she could not qualify under Section 7, subsection 4 (a) above cited. … Under the established public policy of the Commonwealth, [1] there is no higher degree of dependency than that of a needy wife, not living with her husband through no fault of her own, and a needy, widowed mother.

Commonwealth v. Freeman

573 Pa. 532 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2003

the death penalty, the appellant will have no opportunity for post-conviction relief wherein he could raise, say, an assertion of ineffectiveness of counsel for failure to preserve an issue or some other reason that might qualify … The evidence presented at trial established that appellant had an intermittent, romantic relationship with Mamie Shamsid-Din over the course of many years.

Connor v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia

601 Pa. 577 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2009

The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of po dogma, the establishment of no sect. … Clearly, under the deference rule, we may not review the question of whether a student was appropriately expelled from or otherwise disciplined by a school operated solely by a religious organization.

Commonwealth v. Taylor, P., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2019

rights occurring at trial, nor is there any suggestion in the PCRA itself or in this Court’s precedent that [J-36-2019] - 9 alleged errors occurring in the appellate process are immune … The basis of Justice Dougherty’s position is that the PCRA court lacks the authority to nullify precedent established by a higher court.

Commonwealth v. Morris

565 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2001

[W]e will not invoke extraordinary jurisdiction unless the record clearly demonstrates petitioner's rights." County of Berks v. … Although the legislature is not "creating" the right to a stay, it is clearly defining the parameters for the grant of the stay.

Ham v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.

155 Pa. 548 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1893

The evidence clearly shows that he was not necessarily on the track when he was struck by the train. He got off his train to perform a duty, 4to wit, the adjustment of a switch. … ” The whole case was left to the jury because of what were supposed qualifying circumstances of the rule to stop, look and listen, and as a matter of course the jury found for the plaintiff.

Commonwealth v. Maguire, J., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2019

whether they meet standards established in department regulations. 75 Pa.C.S. § 4704(a)(2). … This statement clearly invoked the fifth prong of the Tarbert/Blouse guidelines; it did not challenge the systematic requirement of Subsection 4704(a)(2).

Commonwealth v. Thompson

389 Pa. 382 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1957

mode of establishing the crime charged and on which the jury is to render its verdict. … The judicial personage most responsible for this deviation from the statutory path so clearly delineated by the Act of 1925 was Chief Justice von Moschziskeh.

Girard Trust Co., Trustee's Appeal

333 Pa. 129 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1938

That case is so clearly distinguishable from the instant case that it should be regarded as of no controlling influence here. … In the instant case the personal property of the Assurance Corporation deposited by it with the Girard Trust Company was decidedly not “its to en *153 joy” as long as it wished to qualify to carry on business in the United

Commonwealth v. Gibson

389 Pa. Super. 518 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1989

Appellant concludes that assignment of career criminal cases to particular judges improperly infringes upon his qualified right to a non-jury trial pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1101 as set forth in Commonwealth v. … The Commonwealth’s brief to this Court clearly indicates that it is the policy of the Philadelphia District Attorney to consider prior juvenile delinquency adjudications as well as prior convictions in deciding whether to

In Re: Nom. Petition of Guzzardi, of: Stewart

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2014

Appellants, qualified electors and registered voters, filed a petition to set the nomination petition aside in the Commonwealth Court. See 25 P.S. §2937; 42 Pa.C.S. §764. … The procedures there established are ‘exclusive and must be strictly followed as substantive law.’” (quoting Hockemeier v. Berra, 641 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Mo. 1982)).

Joint Bargaining Committee of the Pennsylvania Social Services Union v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

503 Pa. 236 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1983

This Court "will not lightly substitute its judgment for that of a body selected for its expertise whose experience and expertise make it better qualified than a court of law to weigh facts within its field." … The overall budget, i.e. the establishment of the budget itself, will not be affected any more than a wage increase would affect it.

Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC

615 Pa. 504 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2012

(explaining that an opinion as to general causation is insufficient to establish a prima facie case for liability). … Maddox’s methodology is “utterly mainstream” and has been utilized in a similar context before the Pennsylvania courts by numerous well qualified experts over many years. Brief for Appellee at 9.

Commonwealth v. Holcomb

508 Pa. 425 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1985

The jury found only one circumstance, "repeated offenses", which might possibly qualify as a statutory aggravating circumstance ((d)(9)). … Here the crime of assault with intent to ravish was clearly a component of the rape charge.

Commonwealth v. Jacoby, T., Aplt.

170 A.3d 1065 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2017

Probable cause clearly existed regardless of that information. The trial court correctly denied Jacoby’s suppression motion pertaining to the DNA warrant. VIII. … A witness who is qualified ..as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if; (a) the,expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge