Case law

Ario v. Reliance Insurance

602 Pa. 490 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2009

For stare decisis to apply, a judicial decision must establish binding precedent. … The Commissioner uses this study's projections to determine the appropriate interim distributions to those claimants who are clearly eligible for "(b) priority" status.

Commonwealth v. Hlubin, M., Aplt.

208 A.3d 1032 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2019

. §§ 2301 - 2317, established formal rules of compliance for intergovernmental cooperation. … This manual could have been converted into a qualifying ICA agreement and submitted to the governing bodies of each of the municipalities for adoption by ordinance. This did not occur.

Commonwealth v. Hitcho, G., Aplt.

633 Pa. 51 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2015

Duly enacted legislation is presumed valid, and unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution, it will not be declared unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. … Initially, Appellant presently argues that the PFA order at issue was entered by consent of the parties, and therefore, it does not qualify as “a conviction.” See Appellant’s Brief at 66-67.

Sivick, J., Aplt. v. State Ethics Commission

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2020

For present purposes, we assume arguendo that Son’s receipt of fair compensation for services duly rendered qualifies as a “private pecuniary benefit” bestowed upon a member of Sivick’s immediate family. 40 65 Pa.C.S. … Kraines’ husband, on the other hand, had established himself as a contract pathologist to the county years before Kraines took office.

Commonwealth v. Cost, H., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2020

Let me qualify that. … Regardless of Appellant’s many assertions to the contrary, the Commonwealth characterizes his effort as an attempt to establish a per se rule.

Mezzacappa, T. v. Northampton Co., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2025

Cmwlth. 2016) (en banc) (a county qualifies as a local agency under the RTKL). 3 A “mug shot” is “[a] photograph of a person’s face, esp. one taken after the person has been arrested and booked.” … CCAP maintains that, because “a mugshot identifies a person through the use of a picture, mugshots are clearly identifiable descriptions,” which the County is prohibited from disseminating pursuant to CHRIA.

Mezzacappa, T. v. Northampton Co., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2025

Cmwlth. 2016) (en banc) (a county qualifies as a local agency under the RTKL). 3 A “mug shot” is “[a] photograph of a person’s face, esp. one taken after the person has been arrested and booked.” … CCAP maintains that, because “a mugshot identifies a person through the use of a picture, mugshots are clearly identifiable descriptions,” which the County is prohibited from disseminating pursuant to CHRIA.

Commonwealth v. Scher

569 Pa. 284 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2002

With respect to some of the items that Scher claims were lost or destroyed, the delay in filing charges clearly had no role in causing these items to be lost or destroyed. … We hold that Scher has failed to establish that he suffered actual prejudice as a result of the delay.

Commonwealth v. Laird

605 Pa. 137 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2010

be made “merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly … We find the Superior Court’s reasoning and disposition appropriate, except that the Hubbard rule has since been replaced by the rule established in Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Wentzel

360 Pa. 137 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1948

In other cases the defense is true, and the evidence fails to establish it. … As against an array of at least ten facts clearly indicating that Mrs.

Commonwealth v. Berrigan

325 Pa. Super. 242 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1984

It is well established that: "An accused has a fundamental right to present defensive evidence so long as such evidence is relevant and not excluded by an established evidentiary rule." Commonwealth v. … Clearly, the issue of justification in this Commonwealth, when properly raised, is a factual one which must be resolved by the fact finder. Cf: Commonwealth v.

In Re: Nom. Pet Michael Doyle Obj. of: Sloss

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2023

In this Court’s view, this clearly constitutes dilatory, obdurate, and vexatious conduct and bad faith during the pendency of and in commencing this matter. … Additionally, Objectors note that the court failed to acknowledge that, in the event Candidate was disqualified from the ballot, primary voters retained the option to write in a qualified person of their choice.

In re Anonymous Nos. 4 & 35 D.B. 79

5 Pa. D. & C.4th 557 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1989

Disciplinary Counsel contends that petitioner is not morally qualified to resume practice. Disciplinary Counsel also takes the position that the petitioner did not comply with rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. … The *575 record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that the petitioner does in fact possess the moral qualifications for reinstatement to the practice of law.

Commonwealth v. Garrison

478 Pa. 356 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 1978

It is well established under subsection III that "the mere showing of noncompliance with a court order . . . is never sufficient, alone, to prove contempt." Commonwealth v. … In some of those cases, conduct which clearly did not constitute contempt was held to be contemptuous.

Chalfin v. Specter

426 Pa. 464 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1967

With this contention I disagree, because the Election Code is clearly inapplicable to the basic question here involved. … Quo warranto is the traditional and long-established action to try title to office.

Commonwealth v. Johnson, M, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2026

Kloiber, 106 A.2d 820, 827 (Pa. 1954) (“[I]t is clearly settled that a man may be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone, provided his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”). … But we must conclude that Johnson has failed to establish materiality.

Commonwealth v. Treiber, S., Aplt

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2015

Halverson was qualified to undertake the testing and that the procedures were straightforward. See id at 39-40. … Moreover, the above analysis establishes that Appellant’s claim of deficient stewardship relative to the failure to pursue a Frye 19 See generally State v.

Commonwealth v. Colavita

606 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2010

Appellee never placed the PCRA court or the Commonwealth on notice that, in faulting counsel, he was seeking to vindicate, or establish, a broader pre-arrest due process constitutional right to counsel. … noting that Miranda gave force to the Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination by, inter alia, requiring as an "absolute prerequisite to interrogation” that an individual held for questioning "must be clearly

Commonwealth v. Logan

519 Pa. 607 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1988

The point at issue here, however, is whether the Commonwealth established the existence of specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. … This proposition is clearly absurd.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. 1997 Chevrolet, etc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 2017

to find the mobile home and auto shop at issue, like the automobile at issue in its earlier [J-68A-2016 and J-68B-2016] - 11 decision involving the transportation of illegal liquor, not immune … Knowledge does not establish consent.