Case law

Rogan Estate

404 Pa. 205 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1961

Roga,n, given in response to questions submitted by the bank’s counsel, clearly rebutted the implications of her testimony as related above and established conclusively the existence of a valid gift inter vivos. … witness may be examined as to anything legitimately growing out of or related to matters inquired about in his cross-examination by the other party. . .He may be re-examined ■ as to all' matters- tending .to explain . or qualify

Central Contracting Co. v. C. E. Youngdahl & Co.

418 Pa. 122 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 1965

. §1541, is, ipso facto, immune from an otherwise appropriate foreign attachment because the Authority could not be summoned as garnishee. This was error. … Burr, 309 U.S. 242 (1940) : “[W]hen Congress establishes such an agency, authorizes it to engage in commercial and business transactions with the public, and permits it to ‘sue and be sued,’ it cannot be lightly assumed that

Chester County Children & Youth Services v. Cunningham

540 Pa. 258 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 1995

The rule established by the Opinion in Support of Affirmance violates these well established principles, as courts will be unable to review a whole class of potential adoptions. … We have seen under other circumstances that such agencies are not immune from need of rules imposed by the courts. Gibbs v.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Pownall, R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2022

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Hymon had acted in good-faith reliance on the statute and was therefore within the scope of his qualified immunity. … Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (qualified immunity); Brooks v. Ewing Cole, Inc., 259 A.3d 359 (Pa. 2021) (sovereign immunity); Pridgen v.

Williams v. McClain

513 Pa. 300 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1987

It would, therefore, have to be established that she is “one who because of the possession of knowledge not within ordinary reach is specifically qualified to speak upon the subject to which [her] attention is called.” … Clearly, 1984)).

Com., for Use v. Perry

330 Pa. 355 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1938

Their purpose was *358 clearly to create a special statute of limitations for this class of specialties. By long established definition, a bond is a specialty or sealed instrument. … However this may now be, immunity of the sovereign does not extend to the political subdivisions, the municipal corporations such as counties, townships, boroughs and the like. This was clearly stated in Clover v.

Community Options, Inc. v. Board of Property Assessment

571 Pa. 672 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2002

In Hospital Utilization Project , this Court set forth a five-part test for determining whether an entity qualifies as a “purely public charity” under the Pennsylvania Constitution: [A]n entity qualifies as a purely public … There is, in fact, no case law providing any clear guidance as to whether the provisions of [the Charity Act] exempting from taxation institutions performing government services with government funds clearly, palpably, and

Gould v. Dwelling-House Ins.

134 Pa. 570 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 1890

But none of them depart far, if at all, in principle, from the rule; and such as may not be absolutely consistent in its application must be considered as accidental departures from the established general line. … But as such agreement is indorsed on the policy, the fact that the qualified assignment, such as it is, was made before the indorsement, even if proved, would be entirely immaterial.

Davis v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

561 Pa. 462 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2000

Then we fired for qualification the next round, and it took me three times to go through to qualify. Q. What happened that it took you three times to qualify? Had it ever taken you three times to qualify before? A. … If we have mis *479 judged the General Assembly’s intent, the Act can be amended to more clearly express the legislative policy.

Commonwealth v. John W. Thompson Co.

450 Pa. 5 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1972

Were this version of the exemption applicable to the case at bar, the Commonwealth would clearly prevail. … It is apparent that this 1957 amendment deleted the requirement, which had earlier appeared in the 1956 statutes, that the purchase be made out-of-state in order to qualify for the interim storage exemption.

Commonwealth v. Green

294 Pa. 573 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 1928

This, together with his testimony clearly indicating he had carried a revolver on other occasions, naturally led to the trial judge’s inquiry as to whether that was the place he usually carried it and to his subsequent inquiries … It is also urged upon us that the court’s instruction' that “One who uses a deadly weapon upon another at some vital part, with the manifest intention to use it upon him, must, in the absence of qualifying facts, be presumed

Commonwealth v. Edwards, D., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2022

The cases applying Swain “placed on defendants a crippling burden of proof,” which “largely immun[ized]” peremptory challenges from constitutional scrutiny. Batson, 476 U.S. at 92. … In the case before us, Derrick Edwards established a Batson violation and received a new trial. He now seeks discharge.

Commonwealth v. Zillafrow

207 Pa. 274 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 11, 1903

The first four specifications of error relate to the alleged disregard of the statutory direction that the jurors shall be selected from “the whole qualified electors of the respective county at large: ” Act of April 10,1867 … The facts as to such mode of selection in this case are disputed by the commonwealth, and áre by no means clearly established by the evidence in the record.

Gray v. H.C. Duke & Sons, Inc.

387 Pa. Super. 95 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1989

all the knowledge in his [or her] special field of activity in order to qualify. … Duke’s counsel objected to the mention of the screw on the ground that no foundation had been laid to establish that such a modification existed. See id.

McCafferty v. Guyer

59 Pa. 109 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 1868

It is alleged that it cannot be determined by the election board, notwithstanding it is the only tribunal established to'determine in the first instance who are qualified voters. … But if inspection fail to establish his white blood, will any one say he cannot prove his white parentage, or that a qualified elector cannot rebut, by proof of black parentage, by permission of the board ?

Bell v. Thornburgh

491 Pa. 263 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1980

By implication, it also confers an absolute right to be free from government interference with the choice to remain in a home that continues to be qualified. … Common *277 understanding recognizes that particular facilities are not immune from deterioration and that they therefore will, at some point, outlive their usefulness.

Luchansky v. Farmers Fire Insurance

357 Pa. Super. 136 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1986

clearly not required of the insured, nor even a direct property interest, the test of exposure to financial loss being all important. … An equitable title or interest or other qualified property right would clearly be sufficient____ And a person who has made himself responsible for property may insure it against loss. 4 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice

McGaw v. Hamilton

184 Pa. 108 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1898

a claim to absolute immunity. … If they were uttered as to some other proceeding they were clearly foreign to any matter before the council, and in that event the utterance was clearly outside the pale of privileged communications in any aspect of the subject

Commonwealth v. Kohl

395 Pa. Super. 73 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1990

Following the interrogation, the trial judge found him qualified to testify as to the speed of the vehicle. Dr. … To permit a person to be immunized from the consequence of his illegal act, when the act and the resulting crime are both punishable, is an argument that defies reason.

Commonwealth v. Pyle

462 Pa. 613 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1975

Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966). 7 In Kent , the Supreme Court reviewed the special rights and immunities conferred on the juvenile in a juvenile adjudicatory proceeding, 8 and concluded that in view of the important *621 … Such a petition was not filed here, nor could it have been since the Juvenile Act clearly states a “ ‘delinquent act’ shall not include the crime of murder” 11 P.S. § 50-102. See also 11 P.S. § 50-325(d) & (e). 7 .