Case law

Smith v. Holmesburg, Tacony & Frankford Electric Railway Co.

187 Pa. 451 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1898

A mere guess or conjecture respecting the rate of speed was not sufficient to establish it, and this was all his testimony in regard to it amounted to. … The promptness with which the car was stopped when the horse turned and backed the cart, as above stated, clearly showed that it was running slowly, and the charge that it was run recklessly and in disregard of the rights

Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

512 Pa. 567 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1986

An authority shall transact no business or otherwise become operative until and unless a majority of its board shall have been qualified in accordance with this article. 55 Pa.S. § 600.303(a) (emphasis added). … Appellant attempts to argue that our erosion of the sovereign immunity doctrine as exemplified in Mayle can be extended to punitive damages.

Hermann Trust

454 Pa. 292 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 1973

Justice Pomeroy, Pittsburgh National Bank, as corporate trustee of a charitable trust established by John A. … Hermann established the John A. Hermann, Jr.

M.A.E. v. Doe & Roe

388 Pa. Super. 589 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1989

Appellant has alleged that he was discharged for being homosexual and for having AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). … Appellant relies exclusively upon the PHRA to establish a public policy which would forbid discrimination against homosexuals or against persons suffering from AIDS.

Commonwealth ex rel. Broom v. Hanley

9 Pa. 513 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1848

In this sense it is used in the same section of the constitution, *518 section 8, article 6, as respects electors; “qualified electors” clearly meaning citizens, either native or naturalized, who have paid taxes, and who … To maintain this proposition, that in this case the governor has the right of appointment, as a case of vacancy, it is necessary for the commonwealth to establish that the office, so far as to create a vacancy by death, is

Bank of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth

19 Pa. 144 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1852

No judge who has a decent respect for the principle of stare decisis — that great principle which is the sheet anchor of our jurisprudence — can deny that it is immovably established. … The Court declared that “ to give the Act of incorporation such a construction would be a gross violation of the wholesome principle that an abandonment of the power of taxation is only to be established by clearly showing

Sprague v. Cortes

636 Pa. 542 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2016

. § 726. 2 This Court granted Plaintiffs’ emergency application on July 27, 2016, and a briefing schedule was established. … For the reasons set forth infra, we would hold that the Secretary has established a clear right to relief.

Barber v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

365 Pa. Super. 247 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 1987

Consequently, we will not infer a legislative intent to provide wholesale immunity to one class of individuals, employers, simply because the legislature chose, at a later date, to add a section granting a limited immunity … stated: Indeed, workers' compensation Acts were designed to improve the plight of the injured worker, and to hold that intentional torts are covered under the Act would be tantamount to encouraging such conduct, and this clearly

In Re: Adoption of the Pennsylvania Rules of the Judicial Ethics Adisory Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2022

Sections 1722 and 1723, the Supreme Court hereby establishes a Judicial Ethics Advisory Board (“the Board”). … Civil Immunity of the Board, Its Members, Employees and Agents Regarding Advice by the Board The Board and its members, employees, and agents are immune from all civil liability for conduct and communications occurring in

Forst's License

208 Pa. 578 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1904

In mechanics’ lien cases, it is clearly settled that amendments going to the jurisdiction will not be allowed after the time allowed by the statute for filing has expired. In Knox v. … We are clear that the omission which it was here sought to supply by the amendment, was of matter essential to the petition, and necessary to establish jurisdiction, and it could not, therefore, be made after the time for

Bershefsky v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare

491 Pa. 102 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1980

Only where it “clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution,” may the statute be struck down. Singer v. Shepard, supra; Daly v. … First, the Mayle decision clearly established a new principle of law by overruling the doctrine of sovereign immunity which was firmly entrenched in this jurisdiction and heavily relied upon by the Commonwealth.

In Re Deed of Trust of Rose Hill Cemetery Ass'n

527 Pa. 211 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1991

In the normal course of its business, Rose Hill established a Perpetual Care Fund for the purpose of caring for the burial plots of those persons who are buried in the cemetery maintained by Rose Hill. … Rose Hill could only be denied what the law clearly allows for the most compelling reasons. The Orphans’ Court offers reasoning that is barely cogent, let alone compelling.

Conestoga National Bank v. Patterson

442 Pa. 289 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1971

Therefore, clearly implicit in that holding is our judgment that a decision on an application for a branch bank is judicial in nature and involves substantial property rights. … The Department was not required to hold a hearing or establish a record.

Friday v. Pennsylvania Railroad

204 Pa. 405 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1903

The knowledge which is essential to qualify a witness to testify as to land values, is clearly defined in Pittsburg, etc., Railway Company v. Vance, 115 Pa. 325 , and reiterated in Michael v. … The rule is clearly laid down in Michael v.

Commonwealth v. Davidson

595 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2007

Appellant claims that the “nudity” qualifier in Section 6312(a) lacks any objective language limiting its prohibited depictions of nudity and establishes a subjective test. … each image and did not establish that legislature intended cumulative punishment); State v.

Hazy v. Pittsburgh Coal Co.

384 Pa. 316 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 1956

Clearly then, since the pleadings establish an employer-employee relationship, the Workmen's Compensation Act would seem to be applicable. … "The controversy here is clearly governed by Welsch v.

Marchand v. Marsh

280 Pa. 292 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1924

By this course of procedure, he deprived defendants of an opportunity to prove the allegations of their answer, which must, therefore, be taken as true, whether introducing relevant new matter, or simply denying or qualifying … It does clearly appear that, by agreement of the parties, the property was purchased for a particular use, namely, for obtaining and “preserving a place for the establishment and maintenance” of the college, and for plaintiff

Tegzes v. Township of Bristol

504 Pa. 304 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1984

In the instant case, it is clearly established that Appellant’s appointment as chief of police was in compliance with civil service procedures. … The First Class Tpwnship Code clearly prohibits his demotion without charges being filed and proper grounds being *311 established. We further find that the Civil Service Commission’s action was within its jurisdiction.

International Organization Master, Mates & Pilots of America v. International Organization Masters, Mates & Pilots of America, Inc.

497 Pa. 102 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1981

The established Pension Plan provides “qualified pensioners” with health and welfare benefits in addition to the normal monthly payments as set forth under the Plan. … Quite clearly, once again, resort must be had to the Pension Plan Rules and Regulations to determine the amount of this death benefit.

SEPTA v. City of Philadelphia, Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2017

The FPO also establishes criminal penalties for non-compliance with orders of the Commission. Phila. Code § 9-1121(1)-(2). … It is well-established and undisputed that sovereign immunity must be waived specifically by the General Assembly, 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310 (“[T]he Commonwealth . . . shall . . . remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly