Case law

Commonwealth v. Murphy

559 Pa. 71 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1999

Accordingly, the law prescribes *81 or establishes a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. … Clearly understand that you are not bound by my opinion or what I am about to say in any way, shape, or form. You are the factfinders.

Woodward v. Dietrich

378 Pa. Super. 111 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1988

by the subsequent qualifying phrase, “and to whom the statement was intended to be communicated.” … s(« & The limitation thus imposed must, however, be qualified to a considerable extent.

Commonwealth v. Willis

616 Pa. 48 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2012

The omitted evidence, was also clearly relevant and material to the issue of appellant’s punishment. … Willis further asserts that trial counsel “could have sought immunity for Peoples for purposes of an evidentiary hearing.” Id. at 41.

Benedum Estate

427 Pa. 408 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1967

The Orphans’ Court decided that the word “issue” as used in this will meant what it always has meant *412 and what the testator said, clearly and specifically and unambiguously it meant. … L. 100, 20 P.S. §301.1 et seq., if a gift was made by an inter vivos deed, the law was long and well established that children and grandchildren meant natural children and grandchildren, and issue meant issue of the body,

Gerg v. Pennsylvania Railroad

254 Pa. 316 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1916

Here, however, the testimony was not offered to establish the negligence of the defendant by showing that the train was running at a high rate of speed, but “as bearing upon the lack of judgment which may have been used by … The language of a part of the charge on this branch of the case,, embraced in the fourteenth assignment, standing alone might be objectionable, but as qualified in other parts of the charge would not offend the rule that

O'Halloran v. 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. … This is clearly proscribed under the Dead Man’s Act, and we have so held, albeit without setting forth the rationale at length.

Cianfrani v. COM., STATE EMP. RETIRE. BD.

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

Adler v. Montefiore Hospital Ass'n

453 Pa. 60 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 1973

The prior policy and practice established under Dr. Adler’s regime as director was thus continued under Dr. Curtiss’ directorship. … To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral *81 expectation of it.

Eisenberger v. Harrisburg Police Pension Commission

400 Pa. 418 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1960

The length of service required to qualify an individual for a pension is a material part of the retirement system, and is one of the material actuarial components necessary for the establishment and operation of a proper … That was the rule established in Harvey and that is the rule which we now apply.

Baur v. Mesta MacHine Co.

405 Pa. 617 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1961

And, was not qualified to make a diagnosis? A. That’s right. I bet he won’t do it again.” … An examination of the finding establishes clearly that it was based upon a capricious disregard of the evidence. This was the finding: “Decedent displayed the symptoms of an ordinary attack of virus.

Bogert v. Allentown Housing Authority

426 Pa. 151 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1967

with *156 the receipt, borrowing or disbursement of funds or the acquisition, use or disposal of services or of any supplies, materials, equipment or other property or the fixing of personal or property rights, privileges, immunities … By the same token, it is equally well established that such amendments should be liberally allowed except where surprise or prejudice to the other party will result, or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law

Lesher v. Henning

302 Pa. Super. 508 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1982

After it was established that Trooper Prebula had investigated the accident, the following exchange occurred: Q. … In the present case, counsel for appellee attempted to qualify Trooper Prebula as an expert witness on the subject of accident investigation. See N.T. 185-86.

Passarello v. Grumbine

624 Pa. 564 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2014

She also immunized him for DPT, Polio, Haemophilus Influenza Type B, Hepatitis B, and Pneumococcus. … proper when thus not qualified.

Commonwealth v. Lark

548 Pa. 441 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 1997

and life qualify” the jury and unreasonably consented to the Commonwealth’s challenge for cause of jurors who expressed concern about imposing the death sentence. *451 With respect to the failure to “life qualify” the jury … The day before the jury made its inquiry, the court clearly instructed the jury on this point: The jury will determine whether the defendant shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.

Commonwealth v. Cosby, Jr., W., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2021

release as a grant of immunity was unreasonable.” … immunity existed.”

Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

510 Pa. 401 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1986

This fear was clearly expressed in Burdine, 450 U.S. at 259 , 101 S.Ct. at 1096-1097 , 67 L.Ed.2d at 219 . … 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 Nomination Petition of Johnson

509 Pa. 347 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1985

in each of five (5) counties to qualify for a place on a party primary ballot. 25 P.S. § 2872.1(9) (Supp.1985). … The General Assembly has clearly demonstrated its ability to augment a legislatively proscribed procedure by the Rules of Civil Procedure when that is their intention.

CITY COUN. OF BETHLEHEM v. Marcincin

512 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1986

Clearly the ordinance in question is not incompatible with any of the aforementioned provisions. … By limiting a mayor to two consecutive terms pursuant to Ordinance 2389, the Council has followed a fair and well-established constraint on the qualification for elective office.

Commonwealth v. Scovern

292 Pa. 26 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1927

The second assignment of error complains that the corpus delicti was not clearly established. Corpus delicti consists of a criminal act, a resulting death, and the agency of the accused in its commission. … , by clearly preponderating testimony, his insanity, although he is not required to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Commonwealth v. Elslager

349 Pa. Super. 217 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1986

Clearly, the post-trial motion court had the authority to reverse the suppression judge on the basis of legal conclusions drawn from the facts. … "(A) confession induced by a promise of immunity from a person in apparent authority to perform the promise is involuntary ...