Case law

In re the Philadelphia & Merion Railway Co.

187 Pa. 123 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1898

relative to the organization of turnpike companies, and letters patent were duly issued to the new company on September 15,1890, by the commonwealth, declaring that the said corporation was entitled to all the privileges, immunities … While it is clearly applicable to each in their individuality, it is not applicable, because it is not prescribed, in the case of a charter which has conformed to the requirement, though it has an added privilege which it

MacHipongo Land & Coal Co. v. Commonwealth

544 Pa. 271 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1996

act of May 20, 1937 (P.L. 728, No. 193) referred to as the Board of Claims Act; and (v) actions or proceedings in the nature of trespass as to which the Commonwealth government formerly en *275 joyed sovereign or other immunity … This language shows that the General Assembly clearly specified that the designation of an area as unsuitable for surface mining under these circumstances constitutes an exercise of the Commonwealth’s police powers.

Lowry v. Commonwealth

365 Pa. 474 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1950

extending as far back as 1782, to enable claimants who ordinarily would have been barred by the prerogative of sovereign immunity against suit, to have a method of redress against the Commonwealth. … This remedy and procedure will more clearly appear in the following cases: Fitter v. Commonwealth, 31 Pa. 406 ; Souder v. Commonwealth, 48 C. C. 534; Somerset Contracting Co. v. Commonwealth, 48 C.

Fitzpatrick v. Natter

599 Pa. 465 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2008

“Clearly this does not mean that the jury may not draw inferences based upon all the evidence and the jurors’ own knowledge and experiences, for that is, of course, the very heart of the jury’s function. … However, the fact remains, as we will explain below, that appellants produced no qualified expert testimony on the point.

Hershey Estates v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

400 Pa. 446 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1960

The evidence clearly establishes, although there is no specific finding to that effect by any of the tribunals below, that such an offer was unreasonable under the circumstances. … Such an offer does not meet the test established under Section 402(d). The situation in Erie Forge is readily distinguishable.

Commonwealth v. Speight

578 Pa. 520 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2004

Appellant appealed, and the PCRA court denied relief, reinstating his death sentences, which appellant claims establishes a presumption of vindictiveness. … Such a talismanic requirement would clearly place form above substance. Commonwealth v. Jermyn, 516 Pa. 460 , 533 A.2d 74, 87 (1987).

Commonwealth v. Roebuck

545 Pa. 471 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1996

In addition, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court properly weighed Appel *477 lant’s alleged need for the confidential informant’s identity against the Commonwealth’s qualified privilege to preserve the informant’ … Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant has clearly made a showing that the information sought was indeed material.

Chartiers Valley Joint Schools v. Allegheny County Board of School Directors

418 Pa. 520 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1965

Both the first and second objections are clearly inapplicable to the taxpayers' suit. … What is clearly contemplated with standards required for a legislative delegation of duties is that the Legislature establish the norms and basic policy lines which the administrators must follow.

Adams v. Pittsburgh Insurance

95 Pa. 348 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 1880

No particular period of time is requisite to the establishment of a usage so as to affect contracts : 1 Phil, on Insurance 83. … To establish its validity the usage must have existed so long as to have, become generally known, and it must be clearly and distinctly proved.

Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Labor & Industry

607 Pa. 527 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2010

According to Bayada, it pled the elements necessary to set forth a prima facie case, and it qualifies as a joint employer entitled to the domestic services exemption under the Act. … subvert “any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under [the FLSA] or a maximum workweek lower than the maximum workweek established [by the FLSA

Commonwealth v. Rollins

558 Pa. 532 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1999

His first such claim is that trial counsel failed to “life-qualify” the jurors. 8 Although trial counsel is permitted to life qualify the jury, “such questions ... are not required and counsel is not ineffective for failing … Appellant claims that by failing to life-qualify the jury, counsel allowed an unfair and partial jury to be impaneled.

Jury Estate

381 Pa. 169 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1955

She devised and bequeathed the residue of - her estate to her heirs as determined by the intestate, law, and her husband qualifies as a.member of that.class... … Never did they exhibit any intention of establishing a common home; nor did they establish one.

Terra Firma Builders v. King, W., Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2021

for failing to comply with the Law, thus judgment entered on the lien also invalid); Keely v Jones, 35 Pa.Super. 642, 645 (1908) (“When the act fixes a date at which, or within which, something is to be done in order to establish … 502 “provides that the failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed period ‘shall be sufficient ground for striking off the claim;’ and the cases hold that this unequivocal provision is not to be diminished or qualified

United States Tobacco Co. v. Commonwealth

478 Pa. 125 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1978

The Senate Report, 2 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 2548 (86th Cong. 1st Sess. 1959), uses strong language in noting that "solicitation," and "no other business activities," would qualify as a Section 381 *145 exemption. … King, 260 U.S. 174 , 43 S.Ct. 24 , 67 L.Ed. 194 (1922) (appeal will be dismissed when state court decision on federal question is clearly correct).

Sugar Notch Borough

192 Pa. 349 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1899

This is the rule established by all our cases. It is an application of the maxim expressio unius exclusio alterius. … The “ indebtedness ” which is to be adjusted clearly does not mean the borough debt in its relation to third persons.

Borough of Hanover v. Hanover Sewer Co.

251 Pa. 95 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1915

Offers of evidence as to these matters were clearly relevant, and should have been admitted. … Repr. 476, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin says: “The actual original cost of establishing the business of an existing plant, is clearly unsatisfactory to the last degree, as a test of going value, because it may have been

Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc. v. Duquesne Light Co.

630 Pa. 45 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2014

constructive knowledge, on the part of utilities engaged in affirmative activities proximate to customer premises, of an unreasonable risk of harm arising from their conduct. 11 Indeed, although Duquesne Light would *64 clearly … It is therefore material that Duquesne Light never set out, in its summary judgment effort, to establish such a record or case.

Simmers v. American Cyanamid Corp.

394 Pa. Super. 464 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1990

To quote the Duris court, “Any other ruling would allow corporations to immunize themselves by formalistically changing their titles.” Id., at 356. In Goffe v. … jurisdiction and formalistically changing their names — a result clearly not supported by the Pennsylvania jurisdictional statute, citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(b)); United States v.

Eways v. Reading Parking Authority

385 Pa. 592 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1956

It is true that the mere possession of discretionary power by an administrative body does not make it wholly immune from judicial review, but the scope of that review is limited to the determination of whether there has been … The agreement was sustained because it was approved and the ordinance passed by the qualified vote of a majority of the members legally competent to vote.

Sirianni v. Nugent Brothers, Inc.

331 Pa. Super. 145 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1984

No qualified City inspector was available to check on Nugent as the regular inspector had been sick for quite some time. … We note initially that the record does not clearly indicate the entire procedure used by the City to award emergency demolition contracts.