Case law

Commonwealth v. Gordon

364 Pa. Super. 521 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1987

Although this rule, under which Gordon sought discovery, clearly imposes a mandatory pre-trial duty of disclosure which continues through the time of trial, *530 see Pa.R.Crim.P. 305(D); see also Murphy, 493 Pa. at 49 , 425 … To establish this point, Gordon cited the memoranda of consent signed by the informant, which identified Detective Siti and the equipment he was to use, but which did not mention Officer Cory.

Covington Estate

348 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1943

At the hearing due proof was made of the handwriting of both of the decedents by qualified witnesses. … We said in that case: “Though separate papers may be joined and probated as a will, provided it clearly appears they were intended to be used as a finished whole [Wikoff’s Appl.], the real desire of *7 the decedent must be

MERSCORP v. Delaware Co., Aplts.

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 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.

Wolfe, G & M, h/w Aplts v. Reading Blue Mtn

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2024

Struse Courts relied was “passed in the heyday of Pennsylvania’s push to build railroad infrastructure” and employed a different analysis to determine whether a taking qualified as a “public use” such that constitutional … In time there are settlements along them, villages appear, and stations are established as needed.

Toney v. Chester County Hospital

614 Pa. 98 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2011

Doctors clearly have a preexisting duty to their patients as evidenced in the volumes of malpractice cases that rest on the concept of the physician’s duty of care. … It is impossible, and indeed would be irresponsible on our part, to create an exhaustive list of qualifying relationships in this opinion.

Commonwealth v. Frey

504 Pa. 428 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1984

Lesher, 473 Pa. 141 , 373 A.2d 1088 (1977) (court free to use its own form of expression; only issue is whether area is adequately, accurately and clearly presented to jury).” … He waived his right to have a jury determine his sentence and agreed that the judge would establish the sentence. In setting the sentence at life imprisonment, the Honorable D.

Commonwealth v. Cosnek

575 Pa. 411 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2003

The first question, a straight-forward suppression motion, was clearly appropriate under a Rule 311(d) certification. … The Majority understandably cites the "under circumstances provided by law" qualifier, viewing this decision itself as that controlling circumstance, and also stresses the fact that Bosurgi and its progeny involve the suppression

Rutter v. Northeastern Beaver County School District

496 Pa. 590 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1981

Meehan, 424 Pa. 460 , 227 A.2d 667 (1967) we held that a qualified expert may be permitted to assert a relevant fact not generally known, but known to him because of his special training and experience. … Therefore he will not be found, in the absence of an express agreement which is clearly so to be construed, to assume any risk unless he has knowledge of its existence.

Commonwealth v. Spotz

587 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2006

I join the Majority Opinion, subject to the three qualifying points set forth below. … A fuller quotation than the one provided by Justice Saylor illustrates more clearly the distinction between Lassiter's claim and that of Spotz: Clearly, trial counsel could have had no reasonable basis for failing to explain

Butcher v. Bloom

415 Pa. 438 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1964

[I]f, even as a result of a clearly rational state policy of according some legislative representation to political subdivisions, population is submerged as the controlling consideration in the apportionment of seats in the … Every person who is qualified to vote is entitled, of course, to one vote and one vote only; but in scores of different matters, in business, in public affairs, in Government, in Senatorial and in Presidential elections and

Corbett v. Weisband

380 Pa. Super. 292 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1988

Greene is clearly apportionable and therefore liability for those injuries may not be imposed upon them. The trial court agreed with the arguments of Dr. … We agree that the record establishes that, without question, Dr. Greene was negligent and that expert testimony is not necessary to establish that proposition as a fact. In fact, no one contends that Dr.

In Re: Estate of McAleer Apl of: W. McAleer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2021

Accordingly, there is no evidence that the information qualifies as privileged under comment f . . . .”). … With this balance in mind, the court declined to override “a clearly desirable rule of substantive trust law” in the face of the asserted “privileges . . . and the policies supporting them.”

Brozzetti, F. v. PGCB, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2025

assert that the law surrounding the legality of skill games was unsettled at the time, and they contend that the Board’s denial of their applications “based upon their association with an industry that at that time was not clearly … [J-86A-2024, J-86B-2024, J-86C-2024, J-86D-2024 and J-86E-2024] - 29 not a sufficient ground for interference.”88 Yet, “the mere possession of discretionary power by an administrative body does not make it wholly immune

Teitelbaum, R. v. PGCB, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2025

assert that the law surrounding the legality of skill games was unsettled at the time, and they contend that the Board’s denial of their applications “based upon their association with an industry that at that time was not clearly … [J-86A-2024, J-86B-2024, J-86C-2024, J-86D-2024 and J-86E-2024] - 29 not a sufficient ground for interference.”88 Yet, “the mere possession of discretionary power by an administrative body does not make it wholly immune

Lendell Gaming, LLC v. PGCB, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2025

assert that the law surrounding the legality of skill games was unsettled at the time, and they contend that the Board’s denial of their applications “based upon their association with an industry that at that time was not clearly … [J-86A-2024, J-86B-2024, J-86C-2024, J-86D-2024 and J-86E-2024] - 29 not a sufficient ground for interference.”88 Yet, “the mere possession of discretionary power by an administrative body does not make it wholly immune

Commonwealth v. Chmiel

558 Pa. 478 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 1999

It is inconceivable to me that this Court would order a new trial on the basis of a "chilling" of appellant's Sixth Amendment right when appellant quite clearly exercised that right as vigorously as it can be exercised. … The attorney-client privilege should not provide a cloak of immunity for such a nefarious purpose.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Taylor, N.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2024

This jurisdiction confers special rights and immunities. He is, as specified by the statute, shielded from publicity. … We explained, “[a] per se rule will avoid time consuming appeals arguing about harmless error and will clearly instruct trial judges as to how to proceed on this question.” Id.

Sankey v. Young

370 Pa. 339 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1952

Furthermore, I agree with plaintiff’s counsel that the witness called by the defendant to establish the speed of the *357 defendant’s truck did not qualify to do so since lie was not familiar with that particular truck. … The conduct of this defendant, as related by his own lips, clearly takes this case within the rule of Kasanovich v.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Lynn, W.

631 Pa. 541 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2015

Applying the evidence presented to the legal question of whether Appellee knowingly endangered the welfare of a child by violating a duty of care, protection, or support, the Commonwealth argues that it clearly established … Respectfully, the Superior Court disregarded this plain language when it attempted to modify it with the qualifiers of direct or actual supervision of children.

Better Bets Ventures, LLC v. PGCB, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2025

assert that the law surrounding the legality of skill games was unsettled at the time, and they contend that the Board’s denial of their applications “based upon their association with an industry that at that time was not clearly … [J-86A-2024, J-86B-2024, J-86C-2024, J-86D-2024 and J-86E-2024] - 29 not a sufficient ground for interference.”88 Yet, “the mere possession of discretionary power by an administrative body does not make it wholly immune