Case law

Morgan v. Reel

213 Pa. 81 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1905

the legislature. *86 The last provision to be noticed, and the only one really needing discussion, is section 15 of the judiciary article, that “ all judges required to be learned in the law, .... shall be elected by the qualified … Ferguson, 137 Pa. 595 ; though it may be so if the special statute authorizing the adoption, clearly so intends : Com. v. Henderson, 172 Pa. 135 .

Commonwealth v. Lopez

523 Pa. 126 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1989

This clause is clearly an integral part of the forbidden conduct found in the definition of the offense. … rationale offered for that conclusion was: In section 6108, ... the material regarding licensure is set off by the word of exception “unless”, indicating it is in the nature of a proviso____ The purpose of a proviso is to “qualify

Commonwealth v. House

223 Pa. 487 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1909

He denied the charge, named the hotel at which he was staying, and offered to accompany anyone to it in order to establish his identity. … The two witnesses by whom the identity of the appellant was established were the prosecutrix and Reed.

Rogers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

555 Pa. 285 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1999

Here, the definition of adjudication clearly and unambiguously provides that parole decisions are not ones which are subject to appellate review by the courts. … Consequently, appellants fail to establish that they have a liberty interest in parole which is protected by the United States Constitution.

Zane v. Friends Hospital

575 Pa. 236 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2003

Pa.Super. 559 , 664 A.2d 577 (1995) (physician, who disclosed mental health information based upon an erroneous understanding of a duty to report abuse under the Child Protective Services Law, nevertheless was covered by the immunity … Clearly, these exceptions do not apply in this appeal.

Butterfield v. Lathrop

71 Pa. 225 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1872

Ten days, however, are given after the report is entered to file exceptions thereto, which we take clearly to have been intended by the legislature as a substitute for bills of exceptions to the charge of a court and their … But upon the facts as reported by the referee, it does not appear that there was anything to qualify the effect of the absolute delivery of the milk, to be used and mixed indiscriminately with other milk, and for which the

Schearer v. Reading

346 Pa. 27 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1942

This, we think, clearly was but a subterfuge whose purpose and effect was solely to get rid of this plaintiff. … The reinstatement was not preceded by an examination by the civil service board or the certification of plaintiff’s name by the Board to council as a person qualified and eligible for appointment to the police force.

Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hospital of the Philadelphia

619 Pa. 135 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2012

juror may participate in deliberations in substitution for any other competent and qualified juror, without disturbing the sanctity of the jury process or ultimate verdict. … Communication with a juror that results in the juror’s removal and the substitution of an alternate is clearly beyond the court officer’s bailiwick.

In MATTER OF CONVEYANCE OF LAND BELONGING TO CITY OF DuBOIS

461 Pa. 161 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1975

A fee may be cut down only by a clearly expressed, or necessarily implied, intent of the grantor. … Clearly, John E. DuBois and his wife, granted and conveyed their entire right, title and interest to the land. John E.

Commonwealth v. Claypool

508 Pa. 198 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1985

On appeal, the Superior Court held that “the evidence introduced by the Commonwealth was clearly relevant on the question of the lack of consent of the victim____ However, the prejudice engendered by it exceeds its probative … engage in such criminal activity or actually did have such a conviction — an element of the crime with which he is now charged, our failure to allow this evidence to be admitted would grant to a whole class of criminals immunity

Henry v. Norwood

4 Watts 347 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1835

To have received this part of the evidence would have been a violation of the rule established in Underwood v. … That such evidence is admissible may *351 be clearly deduced from the ground itself upon which the plaintiff must rest his claim to damages.

Commonwealth v. Sanford

397 Pa. Super. 581 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 1990

Clearly then, the child had perceived or participated in “some unexpected or shocking occurrence.” 1 Commonwealth v. Pronkoskie, supra. … At trial, it was clearly established that the child engaged in what can be considered ordinary casual conversation with her mother upon returning home, especially since she was not expecting her mother to be there, and even

Stehle v. Jaeger Automatic Machine Co.

225 Pa. 348 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1909

L. 352, regulating the employment of children in industrial establishments. … Clearly the accident would not have happened but for plaintiff’s illegal employment.

Todd v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.

555 Pa. 193 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1999

The officer, a qualified test administrator, informed Todd of DOT regulations requiring that two consecutive actual breath tests be accomplished. See 67 Pa.Code §77.24(b)(1). … While clearly a motorist must be allowed a reasonable and sufficient opportunity to complete chemical alcohol testing, a refusal to test need not be manifested overtly or verbally.

Meyer v. Joint Council 53, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

416 Pa. 401 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1965

Since the NLRB can offer no satisfactory redress to the individual for the harm caused in a labor controversy, participants in a labor dispute have, in effect, personal immunity from action for libel. … The furthest immunity from suits or prosecution for libel thus far granted is in regard to criticism made of governmental, public officials. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.

Ronnie's Bar, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

411 Pa. 459 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 1963

In this respect, the Board clearly erred. The Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in National Labor Relations Board v. … concluding that these two women had not obtained "regular employment"; in so doing, the Board clearly erred.

Northwestern M. L. Ins. Co. v. Roth

118 Pa. 329 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1888

In view of these and other facts, clearly established by uncontradicted evidence, the court was requested in defendant’s third and ninth points to instruct the jury as follows : “ 3. … In thus qualifying the answer and permitting the jury to pass upon a question of fact not war *343 ranted by tbe evidence, the court erred.

Hart v. Williams

189 Pa. 31 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 1899

It is clearly established by the evidence in the case that Robert Williams and Ms devisees and legatees claiming under Mm had continuous and undisputed possession of the land from 1855 to 1897, a period of forty-two years … The admission of the power of attorney, considered by itself and unexplained, would not have impaired or in any degree qualified the possession to which full reference has been made, and on which the plaintiff’s action was

Interstate Gas Supply, Inc., Aplts. v. PUC

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2025

Under ordinary English usage these do not appear to qualify as “electric services.” … [J-16-2025] [MO: Brobson, J.] - 4  The difficulty is that Appellants do not distinguish such items from products that clearly do not fall within the scope of the term “electric services.”

Glessner v. Patterson

164 Pa. 224 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1894

Testimony was offered not onty of a general course of conduct, but of specific acts tending to establish the fact of illicit intimacy. … As the plaintiff participated in them, all she said at the time, or before or after, which explained or qualified them, or tended to show the falsity of her claim, was evidence for the defence.