Case law

MOWRY v. McWherter

365 Pa. 232 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1950

Mowry, was named and qualified as executor. … If, as the lower court stated, the parties intended a payment of $27,000 “at the rate of $150.00 per month for a period of 15 years,” that purpose could have been completely and clearly accomplished by omitting the words

Yoworsky v. CHARLES STORES CO. INC.

404 Pa. 643 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1961

After this testimony was given, that portion thereof concerning the x-rays was stricken from the record for failure to call as a witness the roentgenologist, who had taken the x-rays and was the person qualified to read and … We cannot say that the lower court clearly abused its discretion herein. Order affirmed. Mr. Justice Benjamin B.

Lancaster School District v. Lancaster County

295 Pa. 112 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1928

These provisions clearly have reference to acquisition of property by the school district subsequent to the enactment of the statute of 1850. … The condition of reverter in the deed *120 is definite and the words connect the condition with the grant, qualifying and restraining the use of the premises for a definite time and a sole purpose: Cook v.

Commonwealth, Aplt v. Williams, T.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2014

However, Bagley supports neither appellant’s “defense effects” root rule, nor his testimonial immunity extension of the rule. … Supreme Court would adopt a Brady materiality extension L which would immunize a defendant against the effects of his own trial testimony, much less his own false trial testimony.

Commonwealth v. Hanible

612 Pa. 183 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2011

Finally, it held that any attempted impeachment of Wiley with an immunity agreement would have been precluded because Wiley never received immunity from the Commonwealth. … It asserts that the stipulation clearly established that the hats had, in fact, been analyzed, but that no DNA evidence could be recovered.

Tosto v. Pennsylvania Nursing Home Loan Agency

460 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 1975

Courts may not declare a statute unconstitutional “unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution.” Daly v. Hemphill, 411 Pa. 263, 271 , 191 A.2d 835, 840 (1963). … VIII, and irrevocably grants special privileges and immunities in violation of Pa.Const. art. I, § 17. However, he has abandoned these contentions in his brief and therefore we do not address them.

Phœnix Iron Co. v. Commonwealth ex rel. Sellers

113 Pa. 563 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1886

In mandamus, the relator must in all cases establish a specific legal right, as well a.s the want of a specific legal remedy ; Comm’th v. Rossiter, 2 Binn., 362 . … Of course a stockholder is bound by the corporate articles, where the right of inspection of the corporate books and papers is qualified by express stipulation; those who become members are subject to the qualification.

Kurland v. Stolker

516 Pa. 587 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1987

Stolker’s, was prohibited by virtue of our spousal immunity statute, which makes a wife incompetent to testify against her husband in any civil matter. 3 Since the maintenance of the statute of frauds, as a rule of property … But the record clearly showed that their divorce decree was not final at the time since they both had appealed the decree to the Superior Court and it was pending at the time of trial in this case.

Juker v. Commonwealth ex rel. Fisher

20 Pa. 484 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 1853

They meant rather that the trustees should represent the worshippers belonging to Trinity Church — those who had established themselves there, and had proved by deeds their intention to maintain and support the church, and … A religious corporation is a society; its charter its constitution; and its privileges are dependent on whatever conditions are clearly expressed.

Yoffee v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

385 Pa. 520 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1956

The right of flight in navigable unused air space is now as constitutionally established as the right to walk through the public square. … And if he did not know of the existence of the line, clearly he should not have flown in that area at that height without knowing the terrain.”

Walker v. General Motors Corp.

383 Pa. Super. 400 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1989

While a police officer may be properly qualified as an expert where the foundation for the presentation of such expertise is laid, Lesher v. … Clearly where evidence is inadmissible directly from its source, it is no less inadmissible indirectly through another.

Commonwealth, Aplt v. Williams, T.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2014

However, Bagley supports neither appellant’s “defense effects” root rule, nor his testimonial immunity extension of the rule. … Supreme Court would adopt a Brady materiality extension L which would immunize a defendant against the effects of his own trial testimony, much less his own false trial testimony.

PA Enviro Defense Fdn, Aplt. v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2022

All members of the Court agree that at least some of these activities would qualify as trust activity. … I express no view on which set of activities would qualify as trust purposes and which would not.

Lira v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

384 Pa. Super. 503 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 1989

The standard by which an expert witness is qualified is a liberal one. … Here, the evidence failed to establish that the declaration of Dr.

Keller-Pike Co. v. Wetter

252 Pa. 340 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1916

The charge itself, as a whole, clearly shows that Keller-Pike Company was treated as responsible for any delay caused by its subcontractors. … In our cases, cited by the appellants, the objectionable word is qualified by other words Avhich clearly required a higher degree of proof than in similar cases.

Thomas v. Hutchinson

442 Pa. 118 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1971

In Zenner , the Court said, inter alia, 324 Pa. at 437 , 188 Atl. at 126 : “Where a presumption in favor of a plaintiff must be overcome by a defendant if the issue is not to go against the latter, the rule has been established … Pennsylvania Hosp., 417 Pa. 486 , 208 A. 2d 193 (1965), discarding the immunity from liability in tort previously enjoyed by public hospitals.

Com., Dept. of Public Wel. v. Uec, Inc.

483 Pa. 503 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 1979

The grounds generally advanced for this reluctance bear striking similarity to those offered in support of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Id.; K. C. Davis, Administrative Law § 17.01 (1959). … Clearly the Code provision was not intended to burden the Department of Justice with every conflict arising between an agency of the Commonwealth and one of its citizens.

Gottschall v. Campbell

234 Pa. 347 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 1912

The necessity for classification of the counties of the state, with respect to the courts, is clearly recognized in the constitution. … Reeder, J., said (p. 193) : “The act is also clearly constitutional.

Commonwealth v. Morley

545 Pa. 420 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1996

Yet, Pomponi was clearly premised on the Fifth Amendment, and did not reference the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Pomponi 447 Pa. at 162 , 284 A.2d at 712 . … The view that the reasoning of D’Elia applies only to cases involving the granting of immunity to witnesses before the Crime Commission was confirmed in this court’s unanimous decision in Commonwealth v.

AAA Mid-Atlantic Insurance v. Ryan

624 Pa. 93 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2014

Noting that, once an insured has been fully compensated for her damages, she is not “legally entitled” to recover more, the trial court concluded AAA acted in a manner consistent with the Ryans’ qualified statutory right … Consequently, neither paragraph B nor paragraph D comport with the well-established public policy underlying section 1722 of the MVFRL, as well as sections 1702 and 1731(c).