Case law

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

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.

The Boro of W. Chester, Aplt. v. PASSHE

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2026

In either event, Appellees explained that they would be immune from paying the Stormwater Charge. See Sw. Del. Cnty. Mun. Auth. v. … This latter, general benefit is clearly the impetus behind the service, regardless of the discrete benefit that will almost certainly result.

Ex parte Steinman & Hensel

95 Pa. 220 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1880

man in a public capacity or where the matter was proper for public investigation or information ; for as he certainly does not forfeit his constitutional rights as a freeman by becoming an attorney, it guarantees to him immunity … In admitting, as he seems to do, that a libel on the court may be a breach of professional' duty in an attorney, Chief Justice HIB-SON adds a most material qualification. “ The motiea should be clearly shown to have been

Hageman v. Salisberry

74 Pa. 280 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1873

The rule may be so qualified by the authority of Banning v. … Everhart, 20 Id. 231, have been cited as establishing the doctrine that the inquisition is no part of the record of the judgment.

County of Berks v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 429

600 Pa. 128 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2009

While the outcome of certain cases may be so apparent to justify a per curiam disposition on the merits at the allocatur stage, particularly where a decision of this Court is clearly aligned with the case under review, I … Employees who fail to qualify will be suspended without pay and given four (4) opportunities to qualify within one (1) week.

Commonwealth v. Riffert

379 Pa. Super. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 1988

, and which was independently sufficient to establish probable cause for the subsequent court orders. … We also find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in its determination that Corporal Baggott had been qualified to give such testimony. *21 To qualify as an expert witness, a witness need only have a “reasonable pretension

Crown Communications v. Zoning Hearing Board

550 Pa. 266 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1997

Although the zoning ordinance of the Borough of Glenfield establishes four zoning districts, none of them permits communication towers by right. … Clearly, both Bell Mobile and Crown are excluded from the definition of public utility by the Utility Code.

Tooey v. AK Steel Corp.

623 Pa. 60 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2013

To do so, facets of the society often require new immunities or larger responsibility, as the legislature may determine. … In reaching our conclusion, we observed: The Act, as originally conceived, established a dual system of recovery for injured employees against their employers — principally through the Article III schedule, but, barring that

Festa v. Greenberg

354 Pa. Super. 346 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1986

While the second step of this determination of materiality clearly does not require expert testimony, the first step almost as clearly does. … The court reasoned that only a physician is qualified to determine whether a risk exists and the likelihood of occurrence.

Commonwealth v. O'Donnell

559 Pa. 320 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1999

Since there is no requirement that a trial court inform a defendant of any right to life-qualify a jury prior to accepting a valid waiver, Appellant fails to establish that her waiver to a guilt-phase jury trial was not knowing … Counsel is not required to ask life-qualifying questions during voir dire and is not rendered ineffective for failing to life-qualify a jury. See Commonwealth v.

TONSIC Et Vir. v. Wagner

458 Pa. 246 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 1974

Since Flagiello abolished the doctrine of charitable immunity, the issue before us is no longer academic. … Indeed, McConnell , specifically recognized a contrary “firmly established” principle of agency.

Kise v. Department of Military

574 Pa. 528 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2003

Since the federal regulations establish a separation procedure that is not amenable to constitutional challenge in state court, and Rise’s petition does not identify any local procedure established by the Department which … In absence of a constitutional challenge resolved by a tribunal of appropriate jurisdiction, however, we will not look beyond the clearly stated intent of the federal legislative and executive branches.

Lykens Valley Coal Co. v. Dock

62 Pa. 232 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 1869

There was no error in the court, charging that the mined coal was personal property, passing under the assignment for the benefit of creditors, and subject to be removed by the assignee; qualified as the instruction was that … The conversion being established — and the jury have found this fact on evidence sufficient to be submitted to them — trover was the proper form of action.

Commonwealth v. Sims

513 Pa. 366 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 1987

Hilton was granted immunity from prosecution, in return for his agreeing to testify at trial for the Commonwealth. … Defense counsel went further and sought to establish that Barry Hilton was the actual killer.

Young v. Commonwealth Department of Transportation

560 Pa. 373 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2000

Thus, every driver within the Commonwealth is qualified to testify regarding his or her experiences *378 in a traffic backup. … The Commonwealth’s regulations on sign placement clearly reflect the tension between having too few and too many warning signs.

Velasquez, L., Aplt v. Miranda, L.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2024

If an immigrant child can be reunified with one or both parents, then the child does not qualify for SIJS. … Clearly, the Custody Court did not feel it could make this predicate negative finding based only on the evidence of record.

Castellani v. Scranton Times, L.P.

598 Pa. 283 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2008

Furthermore, appellees argue that the California authorities relied upon by appellants involve that state’s qualified reporter’s privilege rather than its shield law, which, unlike Pennsylvania’s Shield Law, provides immunity … The Commonwealth Court also distinguished the reporter's privilege from the Shield Law, stating that the latter clearly applies to a reporter protecting his confidential sources. Id. .

Heydrick v. Hutchinson

165 Pa. 208 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1895

A writing, in artificially drawn, but apparently intended as an exoneration of the tax collector for having made the return, was put in evidence by the defendants to show an admission by the plaintiff which went to establish … , and to leave to them the construction of a writing which was clearly for the court.

Gallagher v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board

584 Pa. 362 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2005

World Transportation and Appellant each asserted that it was Appellee’s employer, and therefore, was immune from civil suit in the courts of law under the employer-immunity provisions of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation … Clearly, it was immediately rephrased and it was in no way altering the facts of this case. And to address the issue of a [mistrial] is really, I think, not appropriate at this juncture.