Case law

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.

Sterling v. Philadelphia

378 Pa. 538 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1954

The cases thus relied upon by plaintiff are, therefore, not at all in point. *544 We are, then, clearly of opinion that the ordinance here in question was intended to include those engaged in professions — and therefore lawyers … The exercise of the vocation was, however, a civil right and privilege, to which are attached valuable immunities and pecuniary advantages, and is a fair subject of taxation by the State and by municipal corporations. . .

Sykes v. Thornton

223 Pa. 589 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1909

The witness was clearly competent to express an opinion as to the value of the goods. … With the witness’s competency established, it was exclusively for the referee to determine what weight should be allowed his testimony.

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.

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.”).

Wirth v. Commonwealth

626 Pa. 124 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2014

The statute must therefore “clearly, palpably, and plainly violat[e] the Constitution.” Id. … The Commonwealth Court rejected the argument, stating that the language in question was “clearly a clerical error.” Wirth v. Commonwealth, No. 424 F.R. 2008 , at *5, 2012 WL 8677727 (Pa.Cmwlth.

Shinal, M., et ux, Aplts. v. Toms M.D., S.

162 A.3d 429 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2017

Indeed, Subsection 1303.504(a) of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (“MCARE Act” or “Act”) clearly and unambiguously establishes this duty. 40 P.S. § 1303.504(a). 1 The trial court’s instruction to … Rather, the duty to obtain a patient’s informed consent attaches solely to the patient’s physician, and that physician is liable to the patient if the patient can establish that the physician performed a qualifying procedure

Lopata v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

507 Pa. 570 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1985

While the *578 definition also requires that a given credit week be a “... calendar week in an individual’s base year,” the statute is silent on exactly what qualifies as such. … Such a result is clearly proscribed by the statute. . In addition, claimant received his wages for the week in question after the conclusion of the 1980 base year.

In Re Estate of Stauffer

504 Pa. 626 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1984

This arguably would be a reasonable application of McClain were it not for the fact that Appellee must first establish her status as a descendant before she can qualify to testify under the exception. … The majority's holding to the contrary, that appellee "must first establish her status as a descendant before she can qualify to testify under the exception," is inconsistent with the plain language of that statute and the

Daly v. BUTERBAUGH (Et Al.)

416 Pa. 523 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1964

established, as it has been by this jury: Goldman v. … The record is clearly to the contrary. It is undisputed that the challenge to the judgment was never made or even suggested until this appeal was perfected.

Marshall Impeachment Case

360 Pa. 304 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1948

The method of removing the Receiver of Taxes from office was provided for in Section 45 of the Act of 1854, supra, as follows: “All officers elected: by the qualified voters .under this act, shall be subject to removal from … amendments to the statute law, is deemed to be operative only for the future.’ ” The law which defines the method of removing public officers, whether those officers were created by the Constitution or by statute, has been clearly

Pastore v. Anjo Construction Co.

396 Pa. Super. 58 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1990

, it was immune from suit for common law negligence pursuant to the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act. … We would note that the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Pennsylvania, specifically section 303 (77 P.S. § 481), clearly provides a third-party with the right to obtain contribution or indemnification from an injured employee

Manning v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

353 Pa. Super. 139 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 1986

Litton, the plaintiff was clearly not an intended third party beneficiary. … Surgical and medical services and supplies; designation by employer; artificial limb or eye The following schedule of compensation is hereby established: (1) The employer shall provide payment for reasonable surgical and

Commonwealth v. Valeroso

273 Pa. 213 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1922

This principle, eventually firmly established, has never been departed from or infringed, since it obtained full recognition. … A. 437, was determined upon another constitutional provision, it contains an admirable discussion of the general question of immunity from self-crimination.

In Re Investigating Grand Jury, Etc.

495 Pa. 186 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1981

Clearly, under the facts then present, there was no abuse of discretion. To permit the proposed addition to the record at this late date would be grossly unfair and established a very dangerous precedent. … `Immunity order.'

Commonwealth v. Blount

538 Pa. 156 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 1994

The following facts established by the evidence produced by the Commonwealth clearly satisfy this test. *162 Appellant lived in his mother’s residence. … This testimony clearly responded to the prosecutor’s question, and was reasonably designed to establish that Tahara Underwood had, shortly after the crime, suggested only theft as the motive, not fear of the victims as she

Hill School Tax Exemption Case

370 Pa. 21 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1952

The court below decided that it had so qualified. The borough and the school district have appealed. … Without the review in detail of its financial structure and administration, it will suffice to state that the findings of fact of the court below in that case did not establish that the Ogontz School qualified for the tax

Baily v. Herkes

1 Pen. & W. 126 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1829

It would be a fraud if the law established any other rule. … The rule of law is unquestioned, that a will is not to be expounded by any thing but itself; and this rule as applicable to this will, is clearly expressed in the case of hiñes v.

Battles Estate

379 Pa. 140 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 1954

The corporate executor and trustee is satisfied that the claimant is qualified to take the devise according to the terms of the will. … Her appeal is clearly within the orbit of what she regards as her loyalty and obligation to testatrix.

Byrne v. Schultz (Stone)

306 Pa. 427 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1932

No Pennsylvania decision deals with the same set of facts which are presented in this case, but our cases have clearly established the fundamental proposition that due care is required at street intersections under all circumstances … It is not a command to go but a qualified permission, — i. e., a permission to proceed lawfully and carefully in the direction indicated.