Case law

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. 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, Aplt v. Hackett, R.

626 Pa. 567 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2014

Properly-qualified experts are free to offer their current opinions to a PCRA court, and they certainly can respond to cross-examination based upon the fact that what they believe is contradicted by all objective accounts … On appellate review, this Court employs a deferential standard considering whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the legal conclusion drawn therefrom is clearly erroneous.

Commonwealth v. Boczkowski

577 Pa. 421 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2004

Independent trial evidence established that appellant’s former wife, Elaine Boczkowski, had been found dead in her bathtub in Greensboro, North Carolina, on November 4, 1990. … Pronkoskie, 477 Pa. 132 , 383 A.2d 858, 862-63 (1978), this Court further held that there is no clear-cut rule as to the time sequence required for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance, but rather that fact-specific

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health Education v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP

989 A.2d 313 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2010

Id.; see also id. at 831 n. 245 (questioning “how immunizing the auditors employed to help the independent directors monitor will make either stockholders or independent directors better monitors”). … Brown, 711 F.2d 1343 (7th Cir.1983), which substantially distinguished, qualified, and, at least arguably, limited Cenco. See id. at 1347-49; cf.

PSEA v. DCED Cross Appeal of: OOR

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2016

At the outset, we observed that public school employees clearly have colorable interests in protecting their home address information from disclosure under the RTKL. Id. at 1274-75. … According to Warren and Brandeis, all citizens (as persons, unrelated to any subjective expectations) have the “right to immunity of the person,” the “right to be let alone,” and the “right to one’s personality.”

Pennsylvania State Ed. Assoc., Aplt v. DCED

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2016

At the outset, we observed that public school employees clearly have colorable interests in protecting their home address information from disclosure under the RTKL. Id. at 1274-75. … According to Warren and Brandeis, all citizens (as persons, unrelated to any subjective expectations) have the “right to immunity of the person,” the “right to be let alone,” and the “right to one’s personality.”

In re Patete Petition for Reinstatement

10 Pa. D. & C.5th 415 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2009

Here, petitioner was unable to dem *430 onstrate that he is qualified to resume the practice of law. Following his disbarment, petitioner engaged in dishonest acts. … Many times such errors will not prevent an attorney’s reinstatement if the errors are clearly explained; however, petitioner’s explanations for his errors and omission were not credible or convincing.

In re: H.R., a minor

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2020

We recognize only the clearest proof may establish that a law is punitive in effect. … Appellant’s argument is based on a clearly erroneous reading of Act 21.

Blum v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

564 Pa. 3 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2000

Brent also edited the would-be “peer review” journal Teratology, which published many of the works relied upon by Merrell Dow to establish the favorable consensus of the scientific community. Id. at 2602. … Thus, Smithell wrote to the company that: Much clearly depends upon the value of this publication to Merrell Dow National Labs.

Estep v. Estep

326 Pa. Super. 404 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1984

. *411 (8) The value of the property set apart to each party. (9) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage. (10) The economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property is … Such is clearly excludable as marital property under § 401(e)(1). [4] Compare, Gee, supra, (cattle brought into marriage were not traceable to cattle present at separation); Platek, supra, (one's physical well being does

Commonwealth v. King

618 Pa. 405 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2012

It must be said, however, that the language of Sullivan itself does not clearly establish, or indeed even support, such expansive application. … If she had been Appellant’s only appellate counsel, layering would clearly not be required for the reasons explained above.

Commonwealth v. Ogrod

576 Pa. 412 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2003

In this case, the Commonwealth has clearly met its burden. … This charge clearly advised the jury that identification testimony is not sacrosanct and that it should be received with caution where it is qualified or weakened through cross-examination or a failure to identify the witness

Commonwealth v. Williams

581 Pa. 57 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2004

merely highlighted Appellant's expectation that counsel would defend the guilt-phase vigorously, [17] and denied having *532 a specific recollection concerning discussions of mitigation. [18] Moreover, counsel substantially qualified … to establish any one of the prongs concerning trial counsel will defeat the entire claim.

Pirillo v. Pirillo

462 Pa. 511 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1975

On March 26, 1974, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania established the Office of the Special Prosecutor by appointing respondent Walter M. … O.P. recommends and pays qualified attorneys to represent individual members of the Order.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Martinez, G.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2016

Rather, the trial and intermediate courts clearly applied general contract law in deciding that Appellees should receive the benefit of their bargains. … Nonetheless, as the Hainesworth court recognized, plea agreements clearly are contractual in nature. See Puckett v.

Matter of Silverberg

459 Pa. 107 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1974

The record does not establish that the three judges who sat as triers of fact in appellants' case directly attributed any indicia of guilt to the claims of privilege. … Without adverting to the merits of this position, my reading of the record clearly indicates that the initial cross-examination of both appellant Oxman and appellant Levitan in regard to their prior exercises of the Fifth

Smith v. Glen Alden Coal Co.

347 Pa. 290 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1943

“In the case of a base or qualified fee expiring by its own contingent limitation, it is a right to have the fee simple in possession contingent upon the determination of the fee defeasible. … [or one clearly implied] the grantee of minerals takes the estate subject to the burden of surface support.” Penman v. Jones, 256 Pa. 416, 422 , 100 A. 1043 .

Heimbach, Aplts. v. Amazon.com

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2021

wage established under this [J-76-2020] - 15 chapter or a maximum work week lower than the maximum workweek established under this chapter.”)). … These activities are clearly work falling within the definition enunciated and applied in [Tennessee Coal v. Muscoda, 321 U.S. 590 (1944) and Jewell Ridge Coal v.

Allegheny Reprod. Health v. PA DHS

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2024

Immediacy having been clearly established, there is no reason to delve into a “zones of interests” analysis. Johnson, 8 A.3d at 333. … The significance of Article I rights is clearly prescribed in Section 25: § 25.