Case law

Banfield, Aplts. v. Secretary of the Com

631 Pa. 229 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2015

Acknowledging the Election Code requires the Secretary to reexamine such voting systems upon the proper request of ten or more qualified registered electors, the Commonwealth Court noted the Secretary had conceded that … As all voting systems are imperfect and not immune from tampering, the Election Code cannot be read to impose a requirement that cannot be achieved.

Commonwealth v. Morris

546 Pa. 296 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1996

While qualifying potential jurors, there may be questions dealing with “death-qualifying” and "life-qualifying” those individuals. … The PCRA court found that the handwritten statements of the two alleged alibi witnesses were "clearly penned by the same individual.”

Malt Beverages Distributors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board

601 Pa. 449 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2009

This appeal presents the issue of whether an establishment that sells malt or brewed beverages (“beer”) 1 solely for takeout and prohibits consumption of beer on its premises qualifies as a “retail dispenser,” as defined … by Section 102 of the Liquor Code (“Code”), 47 P.S. § 1-102. 2 We hold that such an establishment does not qualify as a retail dispenser and, accordingly, affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.

Commonwealth v. Bond

572 Pa. 588 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2002

established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). … Thus, the same general rule applies, i.e., this Court will remand unless the self-accusation is clearly meritorious or clearly meritless.

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, H., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2025

Nevertheless, Blakeney may still avoid the time bar by establishing that one of three statutory exceptions apply. … Small addressed the statutory requirements for establishing a court’s jurisdiction to consider the merits of a PCRA petition.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Davis v. Blume

307 Pa. 406 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1932

The distinction is clearly brought out in a number of Pennsylvania cases. Thus Com. ex rel. Leslie v. … He was admittedly elected to the office, has never been out of it in contemplation of law, and the mandamus simply compels the respondents to recognize his established right.”

Leitz v. Hohman

207 Pa. 289 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1904

But though the principle in general has been thus clearly and frequently declared, its limits and practical application between the original parties have been little discussed, most of the cases from Jacoby v. … Though the jurisdiction is one resting on discretion, it is a judicial discretion to be exercised on the established principles of equity. It was held in Wellock v. Cowan, 16 S. & R. 318, supra, and again in Burns v.

Commonwealth v. Moore

378 Pa. Super. 379 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1988

The Commonwealth states that expert testimony elicited at trial will establish that gonorrhea can not be transmitted without at least slight penetration. … Evidence is relevant if the evidence sought to be introduced tends to establish a material fact or make a fact more or less probable. Jermyn, 516 Pa. at 470 , 538 A.2d at 79; Lloyd, 367 Pa.

Cianfrani v. Commonwealth, State Employees' Retirement Board

505 Pa. 294 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1984

Until the abrogation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by this Court in Mayle v. Pa. … Because Cianfrani had, at the time of his retirement prior to July 8, 1978, received his personal contributions in a lump sum, Cianfrani I, 498 Pa. at 207 , 445 A.2d at 738 , the monthly annuity withheld by the Board was clearly

WILKINSBURG POLICE OFFICERS v. Com.

535 Pa. 425 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1993

officials from performing affirmative acts are not within the rule of immunity. … Clearly, the statute seeks to achieve a proper state purpose.

Moon Area School District v. Garzony

522 Pa. 178 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1989

But the question remains as to whether Grant Oliver Corporation is protected by the County’s “immunity” in the matter. We find that it is. … In the Nineteenth Century, state action and private action were concepts clearly distinct and separate.

Commonwealth v. Edwards

431 Pa. 44 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1968

We also agree with the court below that the statement in the hospital qualified as a dying declaration as well as a spontaneous declaration. 1 Appellant’s contention that the evidence does not establish that Nutter knew he … Clearly, if we were to follow appellant’s suggestion, we would allow the jury to become usurpers of the judge’s function to decide the law.

Dauphin County Public Defender's Office v. Court of Common Pleas

578 Pa. 59 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 2004

Of course, any “party seeking judicial resolution of a controversy in this Commonwealth must, as a prerequisite, establish that he has standing to maintain the action.” Nye v. Erie Ins. … To qualify for representation, an applicant’s income may not exceed the amount shown.

In RE NOMINATION OF deYOUNG

588 Pa. 194 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2006

Yet, qualified private party standing was not addressed in any of them. … The expedited timeframes in the Election Code clearly contemplate the exigencies of typical pre-election wrangling. In State Ethics Comm’n v.

Winn v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

506 Pa. 138 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1985

Once the employee has established that he or she is a member of a protected minority, that he or she applied for the position and was in fact qualified and that another applicant was selected to fill the position, the employer … Under McDonnell-Douglas, a complainant makes out a prima facie case of discrimination, in the usual case, if he establishes that he is a member of a protected minority, that he applied for a job for which he was qualified

In re County Investigating Grand Jury of April 24, 1981

500 Pa. 557 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1983

To state the argument establishes its absurdity. … Clearly, the issuance of the presentment is nothing more than the result obtained once the investigative resources have concluded in establishing the existence of a prima facie case.

In re Nomination Petition of Vodvarka

636 Pa. 16 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2016

Clearly, this inspection is intended to maintain the integrity of the election process by insuring that the qualified elector actually resides at the address listed on his voter registration. … a qualified elector.”).

Amendment of Iolta Board Regulations

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2017

If a law firm established an IOLTA Account, each lawyer who deposits all Qualified Funds in that account will be deemed to be in compliance with IOLTA. … Factors which can be used to determine which monies are Qualified Funds include: (1) the cost to the lawyer of establishing and maintaining account(s) benefiting the client or third person; (2) the Eligible Institution’s

Wolfe v. Pittsburgh

373 Pa. 626 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1953

It was also established in that case that the police car had the green light and furthermore, a disinterested plaintiff witness affirmed the sounding of the siren. … The evidence abundantly establishes reckless disregard of the safety of others on the part of the driver of the Black Maria.

Marlette v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

618 Pa. 617 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2012

Mellinger, 567 Pa. 1 , 784 A.2d 762 (2001), wherein we held that delay damages recoverable from Commonwealth parties are limited to those calculated based on the statutory cap established by the Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 … The trial court molded the verdict to conform to the statutory cap of $250,000 imposed by the Sovereign Immunity Act.