Case law

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, 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.

Maravich v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.

350 Pa. Super. 392 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 1986

Maravich objected on grounds that the information would be irrelevant and because the witness had not been qualified as an expert. … This unity of interest in property owned by the entireties is firmly established in the law of Pennsylvania. Thus, in Werner v.

Gregg v. VJ Auto Parts, Inc.

596 Pa. 274 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2007

Thus, Appellee contends that plaintiffs should be permitted to prove causation through any combination of direct and circumstantial evidence of asbestos exposure which may exist, so long as a qualified medical expert renders … Clearly, such evidence presents a jury question as to causation for if Appellee's evidence were credited in its entirety, the jury could award relief to Appellee.

Commonwealth v. Doa

381 Pa. Super. 181 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1989

On the other hand, if you find that the witness is not in a position to clearly observe or that those witnesses were not positive as to identification, or that their positive statements as to identity are weakened by qualifications … Doa has failed to establish that he was sufficiently prejudiced to warrant a new trial.

Hucaluk v. Clyde Realty Co.

378 Pa. 169 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1954

In order to qualify for elevator operator, a job he had never done before, he was given a course of instruction which lasted 20 minutes! He testified: “Q. … Did they foresee the foreseeable, did they anticipate what was so clearly written in the book of anticipations, did they evaluate the inexorable law of cause and effect?

Commonwealth v. Almeida

362 Pa. 596 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1949

.- There is no rule more firmly established in law than that which was reiterated in Commonwealth v. … If the law should be called upon to detect the particular agents by whom such a slaying has been perpetrated in a general combat of this hind, it would perpetually defeat justice and give immunity to guilt. . . .

Pennsylvania Department of General Services v. United States Mineral Products Co.

587 Pa. 236 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 2006

As to Secretary Crowell, he was not qualified to testify as an expert; moreover, he conceded that no person experienced with remediation of chemical contamination ever advised him that the Building could not be cleaned up … See Brief of Appellees at 32 ("A fire is clearly foreseeable.”), 33 (“The issue of foreseeability is for the jury, and if the jury found that the fire was foreseeable, Monsanto is liable.”), 33 (”[T]he jury evaluated the

Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission

620 Pa. 373 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 2013

As we made clear in Holt I, the Constitution simply “does not dictate any form of deference to the LRC, does not establish any special presumption that the LRC’s work product is constitutional, and it also places no qualifiers … Clearly, it would not be in the public interest.”).

Commonwealth v. Garvin

335 Pa. Super. 560 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 1984

The difficulty is that, having made these apparently clear and straightforward statements, the Court then proceeds to qualify them so drastically that one is left to wonder what they really mean. *579 Specifically: Immediately … In addition, the Court does not consistently or clearly explain what it means by "prejudicial to the defense".

Carr, R. v. PennDOT & SCSC Appeal of: PennDOT

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 2020

Cmwlth. 2018).5 Carr argued before the panel that the Commission erred in determining her postings did not qualify as protected speech. … The record establishes that safety is the core mission of the Department.

Commonwealth v. Small, E., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2020

Amicus contends that parsing the procedural history of a petitioner’s case in order to determine the precise time periods of prior representation can raise complications, including determining what exactly qualifies as legal … although the PCRA court placed some significance upon the fact that Bell, in 1993, did not testify regarding his initial impression that Small had “punched” the victims rather than stabbed them, Bell’s trial testimony clearly

Commonwealth v. Cain

471 Pa. 140 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 1977

Instantly, the record establishes that when the testimony of Dr. … Nelson testify today to qualify him as an expert, show his knowledge of the propensity and the effect of L.S.D. both physiologically and psychologically, and to show at that time that that witness was in no position to recollect

In re Anonymous Nos. 101 D.B. 88 & 17 D.B. 89

10 Pa. D. & C.4th 599 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1990

Other testimony clearly indicated that the petition was in order, and respondent was correct in his assessment. … Respondent attempted to establish a causal cbnnection between his addiction and his misconduct through the expert testimony of a certified addictions counselor.

Commonwealth v. Blystone

519 Pa. 450 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1988

A statute commands the presumption of constitutionality when it is lawfully enacted, unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the constitution. Hayes v. Erie Ins. … To accept the appellant’s contention of error, would be to accept the worth of his substantive argument to the effect that death qualified juries are prosecution-prone. We will not do this. Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Mason, L., Aplt

634 Pa. 359 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2015

Dick, 602 Pa. 180, 187 , 978 A.2d 956, 960 (2009) (A tumultuous relationship between appellant and his wife and their argument sometime prior to the incident was “clearly insufficient” to establish “heat of passion,” and … Again, part of what qualifies the decisions regarding whether to plead guilty, or attend trial, or testify in one’s defense as fundamental ones resting with the defendant is the recognition that the defendant has an intimate

Commonwealth ex rel. Thomas v. Commissioners of Allegheny County

32 Pa. 218 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1858

The state or community may furnish a qualified remedy against itself; but unless it do so, the contract is remediless. Everything beyond this must be referred to the arbitrament of the sword. … But should the county commissioners arouse themselves from unworthy dreams of repudiation, and bring the railroad company and the holders of these bonds to an account in a court of equity, and establish the fact that the

Commonwealth v. Hales

384 Pa. 153 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1956

It was important from the defense point of view to establish the exact hour of the death of the baby. … Nor is every judge qualified to produce humor and distil wit which is interesting, much less entertaining.

Commonwealth v. Bovaird

373 Pa. 47 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1953

The testimony was clearly inadmissible. … In law they are treated in a qualified sense, as joint tenants of the partnership property, having an interest therein "per my et per tout."'" Napoleon v. State, [3 Tex. App. 522].

Commonwealth v. Spotz

610 Pa. 17 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2011

This is when [Appellant] most clearly displayed his difficulty in determining allegiance. … I think you would all be wise enough and think clearly enough to know that it is better to put it in someone else's hands.