Case law

In Re Estate of McClain

481 Pa. 435 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1978

Before an out-of-court declaration can be admitted under the pedigree exception, we have held that three qualifying requirements must be met. … Such a requirement would clearly be absurd and we decline to impose it in this situation.

Commonwealth v. Garofalo

386 Pa. Super. 363 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 1989

Karch, 349 Pa.Super. 227, 229 , 502 A.2d 1359, 1361 (1986), in which we stated: It is well established that hospital records are admissible to show the facts of hospitalization, treatment prescribed, *368 and symptoms present … Brief of appellant at p. 3. *366 Issues 1 through 3, despite being addressed by the trial court in the nature of a sufficiency of the evidence argument, are clearly boilerplate.

Estate of Cope

191 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 1899

To that extent, the operation of the act is restricted and qualified. … On the commonwealth’s own assumption, therefore, the act is a special law, changing the law of succession, and is clearly forbidden by article 8, section 7 of the constitution.

Delliponti v. DeAngelis

545 Pa. 434 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1996

Section 101 defines an adjudication as [a]ny final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations of any or … The Borough argues that it clearly met its burden of proof that Appellant failed to mitigate her damages. It submits that Appellant did not take the necessary steps to obtain employment.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Margiotti v. Lawrence

326 Pa. 526 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 1937

This old and well-established rule has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the recent case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 57 Sup. Ct. Rep. 578, 81 L. … S. 78, 83 ); it has no existence separate and apart from the provision which it is designed to limit or qualify.

Horbal v. Moxham National Bank

548 Pa. 394 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1997

A trial court’s grant of summary judgment will not be reversed unless it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. Cochran v. … Thus, parole evidence is admissible to establish that an assignment, absolute on its face, was intended to operate only as security for a debt. Biddle v.

Gill's Estate

268 Pa. 500 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1920

The court below finds that “The testimony of counsel for the parties when the contract was signed......clearly shows that Gill [the decedent] was to pay his indebtedness; but upon motion of appellee ordered the evidence in … No authority contradicts or qualifies this conclusion; on the contrary it is borne out by the others hereinbefore cited.

Sitler, S., Aplt. v. Jones, A.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2025

.] - 3 provision applied to “proceeding[s] to establish paternity,” authorized courts to order “blood grouping tests by a duly qualified physician[,]” and provided for the admissibility of the test results “but only in … --The tests shall be made by experts qualified as examiners of blood types, who shall be appointed by the court.

National Land & Investment Co. v. Easttown Township Board of Adjustment

419 Pa. 504 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1965

To compel a plan on the basis of four acre lots would be -unrealistic since appellees clearly propose to build on one acre lots. … Clearly no such result will follow. The land and its owner are still bound by the subdivision regulations.

Mesta Machine Company Case

347 Pa. 191 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1943

The establishment in its completed condition — fitted for its proper use? Or the bare walls? (For there is no intermediate point; all between, from the engines to the spindles, is machinery.) … If a manufactory it is clearly subject to taxation under the specification of that class of property.” The record showed that title to the land was in the Mesta Company, and the assessor was not obliged to go further.

Pennsylvania State University v. State Employees' Retirement Board

594 Pa. 244 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2007

funds by an agency or its acquisition, use or disposal of services or of supplies, materials, equipment or other property and any minute, order or decision by an agency fixing the personal or property rights, privileges, immunities … The threshold question raised by this argument is whether, and to what extent, SERS qualifies as a fiduciary.

Camden & Atlantic R. R. v. Hoosey

99 Pa. 492 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1882

This is precisely what the evidence as to the plaintiff’s position at the time of the accident clearly establishes. … The learned judge, in affirming this proposition, added the qualifying wmrds, “unless compelled thereto by circumstances.”

Goodheart v. Casey

521 Pa. 316 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 1989

for judicial service. 3 It necessarily follows that, since our compensation package is clearly below that of the federal system, our inability to attract the most qualified to serve is further compounded. … Thus, any judge of that court must receive the compensation established as adequate by the legislature for the performance of the duties of that office.

Pennsylvania Railroad v. Coon

111 Pa. 430 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1886

No fixed rule of duty, applicable to all cases, can be established. … The case before us is clearly not within any of the exceptions to the general rule above stated. Judgment affirmed.

Pennsylvania School Boards Ass'n v. Commonwealth Ass'n of School Administrators

569 Pa. 436 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2002

It is well established that a statute is presumed to be constitutional and will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution. Commonwealth v. … As argued by the Association, the plain statutory language, when read in its entirety, qualifies the power granted to the arbitrators.

Ligo v. Dodson

301 Pa. 124 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 1930

This phase of the case figured, however, prominently at the trial, and the presiding judge, to clearly inform the jury what bearing their finding as to the handwriting in the will itself might have upon their conclusion as … We have examined attentively much of this testimony and many of the exhibits, and are impressed, as the jury must also have been, by the number and standing of the witnesses who, properly qualified, testified, from their

Arlotte v. National Liberty Insurance

312 Pa. 442 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1933

Turning now to the facts of the instant case, we find a situation which clearly demands an application of this doctrine. … The learned court below clearly erred in submitting the question to the jury. The interpretation of the contract was for the court.

Guy v. Liederbach

501 Pa. 47 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1983

Croman, 180 Pa. 532 , 37 A. 98 (1897) refused to apply the privity doctrine where to do so would immunize an attorney from a clear breach of duty to a known third party. … This case presents an opportunity for this Court to establish a rule of sound principle and ample precedent, to wit: that where through the negligence of a lawyer scrivener of a will, a known designated beneficiary loses

Hatter v. Landsberg

386 Pa. Super. 438 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 1989

We find that appellants properly pleaded and alleged facts which establish a cause of action falling squarely within the supreme court’s holding in Mason . … In count III of the complaint, appellants state damages that clearly relate to expenses and inconvenience of raising their child, which clearly are barred by our supreme court’s decision in Mason v.

Whitmire v. Montgomery

165 Pa. 253 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1895

This was in entire harmony *261 with the established doctrine that the law will not lend its aid to enforce a contract made in violation of a statute, nor set aside such a contract when it has been fully executed by the parties … This ignores entirely the testimony as to subsequent ratification, which was clearly for the jury.