Case 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.

May Department Stores Co. v. Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment, Appeals & Review

441 Pa. 556 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1971

Juskalen, the trial court found him to be a qualified expert in his field. … Here, the expert witnesses for both sides were qualified and gave relevant testimony.

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 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 ...

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

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. Musser Forests, Inc.

394 Pa. 205 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1958

Neither by intent nor scope does the Forest Tree Seedling Act qualify as a penal statute which even a cursory reading of the Act will readily confirm. In Gross v. … The rule clearly is, that a party is not bound to make any discovery which would expose him to penalties, and this case falls within it.'

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Truscott v. Yiddisher Kultur Farband

382 Pa. 553 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1955

Do you know a single one of your officers who has at any time been qualified to teach either Jewish history or American history? A. … I regard this purposeful evasion of the rules of established appellate procedure as a very serious matter.

Visionquest National, Ltd. v. Board of Supervisors

524 Pa. 107 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1990

Clearly, the residents of the community were not making “bald assertions” or stating “unsupported anxieties”. … In this case, the applicant attempted to qualify as an educational facility under the township’s conditional use ordinance. 4 The applicant presented testimony of an education expert to establish that the facility was indeed

Stevens Estate

434 Pa. 259 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 1969

In order to answer this question, we must turn to the second statute involved in this appeal — §211 of the Fiduciaries Act which establishes the family exemption. … Furthermore, we think that, on the face of the statute, the taxpayer has not qualified for a deduction.

In RE NOMINATION PETITION OF MARIE DEYOUNG AS a DEMOCRAT FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE 163rd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT

895 A.2d 546 · 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.

Miller v. Commonwealth

624 Pa. 82 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2013

Appellees’ possession of the trust property is also not clearly “substantial.” … However, these distinctions are not needed to establish this trust fails to qualify as a living trust.

Commonwealth v. Davis

331 Pa. Super. 285 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1984

Probably most similar to appellant’s situation, yet clearly distinguishable, is Davis, supra. … Both were explicitly qualified as experts in drug paraphernalia.

White Appeal

414 Pa. 498 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 1964

There is nothing in Bule 14 which precludes the establishment and maintenance of a law office on the premises of the corporation which employs a lawyer as “house counsel.” … “The county court, therefore, cannot overrule its own board of law examiners to keep a qualified applicant out.

Wainwright v. McCullough

63 Pa. 66 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1870

The court below ruled the case upon the effect of the low and high water lines as established by commissioners under Act of 16th April 1858, Pamph. … It begins by a recital, “Whereas, The lines of lands on and along the shores at the rivers at and near the city of Pittsburg, in the county of Allegheny, have never yet been clearly ascertained, and as it is important to

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Surrick

521 Pa. 264 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1989

In the exercise of its constitutionally established role, the JIRB is a part of the judicial system. … Clearly, to the extent that a member of the JIRB breaches duties pertaining to membership in that body, appropriate remedies, including removal from office, are available.

Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity

625 Pa. 301 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2014

The OISR is undoubtedly correct that we approved of the involvement of trial courts in determining when the Rule 4003.5 “cause shown” requirement has been met; indeed, the language of the rule clearly provides that “[ujpon … Co., 435 Pa. 503, 507 , 259 A.2d 451, 453 (1969) (noting Pennsylvania’s movement toward liberal discovery rules to allow for an opportunity to produce rebutting or qualifying facts).

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

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