Case law

In re Anonymous No. 42 D.B. 74

13 Pa. D. & C.3d 254 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1979

As a matter of fact, the record clearly discloses that after petitioner’s suspension by the Court of Common Pleas of [ ] County on April 2,1973, petitioner did in fact direct letters, dated April 11, 1973, to some of his … In further contradiction of the committee’s findings, the evidence establishes that petitioner not only read the *267 letter and opinion of chief disciplinary counsel with its enclosures, but also sought the advice of his

Commonwealth v. Bruno

435 Pa. 200 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1969

not the same as the consequences of a prison sentence, a proceeding determining competency to stand trial is not a "substitute" for a trial determining guilt or innocence of a criminal charge because the two proceedings clearly … III, § 327, as amended, 50 P.S. § 1202, and composed of two qualified psychiatrists and a competent lawyer, filed its report, consisting of 16 typewritten pages, concluding that the defendant is mentally ill as defined in

Stottlemyer v. Stottlemyer

458 Pa. 503 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1974

The establishment of prompt efficacious procedures to achieve legitimate state ends is a proper state interest worthy of cognizance in constitutional adjudication. … however, that Starns was decided after Shapiro and that, after Vlandis was decided, the Court, in a case very similar to Starns , summarily affirmed a decision upholding a one-year residency requirement as a condition to qualifying

Sherk v. DAISY-HEDDON, ETC.

498 Pa. 594 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1982

of, is insufficient to establish a case of liability.' … With the presentation of an unsafe product that has the energy capabilities such as this gun, we could lose the immunity to criticism that we have enjoyed in the toy market.

DEPT. OF GEN. SERV. v. US Mineral Prod.

898 A.2d 590 · 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

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Housman, W.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2020

In order to qualify for relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more 9Housman does not presently challenge the denial … A petitioner also must establish that his claims have not been previously litigated or waived. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3).

Commonwealth v. Housman, W., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2020

In order to qualify for relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more 9Housman does not presently challenge the denial … A petitioner also must establish that his claims have not been previously litigated or waived. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3).

In re Anonymous No. 66 D.B. 84

17 Pa. D. & C.4th 414 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 1992

The testimony of Doctors [E] and [F] unequivocally established that the respondent’s psychiatric condition was a factor in inducing his professional misconduct. Dr. … He is a fully qualified expert concerning bankruptcy law. If called, [T] would testify that the U.S.

In Re: Order Adopting New Rule 705.1, Amending Rules 454, 462, and 1010, and Approving the Revision of the Comments to Rules 409, 414, 424, 455, 550, 590, and 704 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2016

The defendant's right to allocution at sentencing is well established, and the trial judge must inform the defendant of that right. See Commonwealth v. Thomas, [520 Pa. 206,] 553 A.2d 918 (Pa. 1989). … The judge should explain to the defendant, as clearly as possible, the timing requirements for making and deciding a post-sentence motion under Rule 720.

Commonwealth v. Upshur

592 Pa. 273 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2007

Some items will fit squarely within the category of public judicial records or documents while others will just as clearly be excluded. … In the present matter, however, the trial court clearly found voir dire to be an adequate method of protecting Ms.

In Re: Order Rescinding and Replacing Rules 1.1 through 13.3 and Rule 17, and Amending Rules 14.1 through 16.12 of the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rules

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2015

Definitions The following words and phrases when used in these Rules shall have the following meanings, respectively, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise or the particular word or phrase is expressly defined … Explanatory Comment: The court, by local rule, may establish procedures for the disposition of matters after the pleadings are closed. Rule 3.8.

In Re Benninghoff

578 Pa. 402 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2004

Justice Saylor, I stated: I would hold that the omission here is an amendable defect since the Statement of Financial Interest Form clearly identifies Benninghoff as an incumbent State Representative. … It is settled that, "[w]hile an unexplained per curiam decision is certainly binding as the law of that case, by definition it establishes no precedent beyond the authority cited in the order." Commonwealth v.

In Re: Order Rescinding and Replacing Rules 1.1 through 13.3 and Rule 17, and Amending Rules 14.1 through 16.12 of the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rules

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2015

Definitions The following words and phrases when used in these Rules shall have the following meanings, respectively, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise or the particular word or phrase is expressly defined … Explanatory Comment: The court, by local rule, may establish procedures for the disposition of matters after the pleadings are closed. Rule 3.8.

Schmidt, M. v. Schmidt, Kirifides & Rassias (WCAB)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2025

Murphy prescribed CBD oil as an agent to alleviate Claimant’s pain symptoms,” and, consequently, she “would conclude that, under the facts presented in this case, CBD oil qualifies as a ‘medicine’ under Section 306(f.1 … In pursuit of our objective, we also note our previous recognition that the WCA “clearly and unambiguously provides that employers and insurers are obligated to pay providers . . . for reasonable and necessary treatment

In Re: The Thirty-Five Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Pet of: Attorney General Kathleen Kane

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2015

Shall have the right to request an application for an immunity order from the Attorney General. 3. … Shall have the right to request an application for an immunity order from the Attorney General. 3.

In re Bruno

627 Pa. 505 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2014

Members of the CJD enjoy immunity “from suit for all conduct in the course of their official duties.” Pa. Const, art. V, § 18(b)(6). Section 18(d) demarcates the constitutional bounds of the CJD’s authority. … The CJD should establish a "fast track” mechanism for addressing interim suspension requests. 5.

ODC, Pet v. Cynthia A. Baldwin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2020

Upjohn provided a framework to identify when employee communications with corporate counsel qualified as protected attorney-client communications with the corporation holding and controlling the privilege. … ] (4) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim or disciplinary

Campbell v. Galbreath

1 Watts 70 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1832

Com. 195, 6), and must be considered more than a bare right to the possession of the land; it is nothing short of an incipient and qualified right to it in fee, which is to become absolute and perfect upon the fulfilment … Most clearly, by the first part, the claimant, whether he had a warrant or not, must make the actual settlement there described and then follow; and in default of such actual settlement and residence, &c. the land' is to

Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

618 Pa. 175 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2012

“Adjudication,” according to the AAL, is a type of order, described as: “[a]ny final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities … Thus, according to the Public Utility Code, the Commission was established and continues as "an independent administrative commission.” 66 Pa.C.S. § 301(a).

Schrock v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

386 Pa. Super. 215 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 1989

that counsel for the appellant prohibited the radiologist from giving responses to various questions claimed by counsel to warrant the proffering of an expert opinion, a matter on which the deponent purportedly was not qualified … The procedures in Craig , and the new rule itself, clearly contemplate an award of prejudgment interest. [2] New rule 238, to the extent that it awards prejudgment interest for delay in commencing and concluding trial of