Case law

Commonwealth v. Kindler

536 Pa. 228 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 1994

The police executed the warrant by going to Appellant’s home and, after a struggle, handed Appellant a copy of the warrant which clearly named Bernstein as the informant 5 . … The evidence the jury heard established that Bernstein was subpoenaed as a witness by the Commonwealth for the Sound Odyssey burglary and that Bernstein was granted immunity so that he could testify against Appellant at the

Commonwealth v. Schollenberger

156 Pa. 201 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1893

The second line along which he claims to derive immunity is the “ original package ” doctrine. He says he sells in the packages made up a-t the factory. … The destructive effect upon commerce of such restrictions was clearly foreseen and wisely guarded against by our fathers.

Buck v. Commonwealth

107 Pa. 486 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1884

And where two persons had been indicted together, one for stealing and the other for receiving, and the principal pleaded guilty, Wood, B., refused to allow the plea of guilty to establish the fact of the stealing by the … But there was no judgment; only a plea which was at best but a qualified admission of guilt, and which might have been withdrawn the next day. We are of opinion that the plea was improperly received.

Rivera v. Philadelphia Theological Seminary of St. Charles Borromeo, Inc.

510 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1986

The evidence further established that the pool depths were clearly marked and that Rivera’s body was found in the area of the pool which was twelve feet deep and so marked. … These principles are well established.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hunte, L.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2025

(b) Immunity from civil or criminal liability. … The trial court first found that the instant case clearly implicated Section 3755.

Neafie's Estate

325 Pa. 561 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1937

It is true that in Bullitt’s Estate, 308 Pa. 413 , we held that an adjudication was not res judicata of a sum fixed for intact value by the trustees, but none was there established by the court below, a fact clearly demonstrable … Dickinson’s Estate, 285 Pa. 449 , relied on by appellant to establish that the write-down was a capital loss is clearly distinguishable.

Rau's Estate

254 Pa. 464 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1916

As clearly appears in the opinion in the case, delivered by Mr. … One of these, clearly deducible from all the cases, is stated by Mr. Powell in his admirable Treatise on Devises, Vol.

Philadelphia v. United States Housing Corp.

280 Pa. 417 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 1924

An examination of them shows, however, that the Government does not expressly waive its immunity in any respect. … These distinctions are clearly pointed out in Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. City of Decatur, 147 U. S. 190 , and, as shown thereby, “have been recognized and stated by the courts of almost every state in the Union.”

Philadelphia v. Commonwealth

270 Pa. 353 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1921

L. 36, changed this and established uniform primaries under statutory regulations. … suit is used in the sense of “lia *360 bility”; the very next paragraph, as well as all that follows in the opinion, clearly shows this to be so.

Tanenbaum v. D'Ascenzo

356 Pa. 260 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 1946

It is well established that a school medical inspector of the school district of Philadelphia is not under the civil service of that city and is not an employe of the city. … As appellant clearly disclosed no basis for his application for the alternative writ of mandamus, the demurrer to the return was properly sustained and the petition dismissed.

Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

576 Pa. 546 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2003

Beroes’ testimony under Frye constituted unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous. See id. … Judge Del Sole joined the majority opinion and stated that that when a pre-trial motion challeng *555 ing an expert is filed, the movant must establish that the expert is not qualified to testify. Id. at 744 .

In re County Investigating Grand Jury of June 1, 1979

495 Pa. 211 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1981

was used against him by establishing that they had an independent source for all of the disputed evidence. … Accordingly, I would find that the heavy burden placed upon the Commonwealth to establish that no use would be made of immunized testimony is virtually undischargeable under the circumstances presented. 4 For the foregoing

Abbott v. Steel City Piping Co.

437 Pa. 412 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1970

If a case involves multiple defendants, including general and subcontractors, a charge which does not clearly establish which acts each defendant may be held responsible for may be inadequate. Pascarella v. … Moreover, -whether or not the relevancy of the proposed testimony hás been adequately established is a matter to be left largely to the discretion of the trial judge. Brandon v.

First National Bank v. Wireback's

106 Pa. 37 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1884

, unless they found the facts assumed in the hypothesis, to have been established by the proofs. … The opinion of an expert can be of no value, when the facts of which the opinion is predicated, are not established ; whether they are so established is for the subsequent consideration of the jury.

Corydon Township Election

236 Pa. 588 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1912

The law having put its most solemn condemnation on every step of the transaction, the ballot which the voter cast in violation of it is clearly illegal and ought not to be counted...... … constitution having provided no machinery for ascertaining whether a particular voter possesses the requisite qualifications, the legislature has power to prescribe the form and nature of the proof by which......electors must establish

Harrisburg v. Pass

372 Pa. 318 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1953

There is no merit in defendants’ argument that their property qualifies as a nonconforming use under section 17 (d) (1) of the ordinance, which provides that a nonconforming use in existence at the time of the adoption of … Defendants also urge that their property qualifies under section 16 (b) of the ordinance, which provides that “All buildings or structures for which building permits have been obtained . . ., and the excavation for which

Applewhite v. Commonwealth

617 Pa. 563 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2012

the standards established by Act 18. … There is no doubt that the record, as it is, establishes the immediate and irreparable harm required for the injunction. 1 Pri- or to enacting Act 18, the General Assembly clearly failed to sufficiently consider the burdens

Commonwealth v. Zdrale

530 Pa. 313 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1992

Clearly, Thomas served as a mere conduit *318 by which Smith's statements were brought into court. … Garrison, 398 Pa. 47 , 157 A.2d 75 (1959) (hearsay declarations of wife/co-conspirator not barred by spousal immunity). Commonwealth v.

Donaldson v. Maffucci

397 Pa. 548 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1959

A sine qua, non of this type of examination is that the witness be first qualified of record as an expert. It was appellants’ counsel’s duty to so qualify, if he could, Dr. … Palin had not been properly qualified, even then no effort whatsoever was made to qualify him.

Seifred v. Pennsylvania Railroad

206 Pa. 399 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1903

This was clearly misleading and erroneous and was not cured by any other part of the charge. … The rule as to the measure of damages in cases of this character is so well established by a long line of decisions that it need not be repeated here.