Case law

Tumolo v. Blanc

11 Pa. D. & C.2d 426 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 9, 1957

In the complaint plaintiff alleges that he is a duly-qualified elector of the First Councilmanic District of Philadelphia, and that a vacancy exists in the council-manic office for that district, that the president of city … It is well established that mandamus is an extraordinary writ for the enforcement of a ministerial duty: Dorris v. Lloyd (No. 1) 375 Pa. 474 , (1953) ; Butcher v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, 163 Pa.

Vinciguerra v. Crane Co.

34 Pa. D. & C.5th 332 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 21, 2013

Pantelleone, agreed that asbestos is a carcinogen and that any exposure over a very low threshold could qualify as a dangerous and hazardous exposure to asbestos: precisely the testimony adduced from plaintiff’s expert on … Crane failed to establish a proper foundation for admission of this evidence, so it was properly excluded.

Genovese Appeal

18 Pa. D. & C.2d 585 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 8, 1959

She was issued a license for this establishment following an investigation by the police department which apparently found her qualified to continue in this type of business. … Reading Parking Authority, 385 Pa. 592 (1956), our Supreme Court indicated clearly that the orders of administrative tribunals involving acts of discretion, will not be reversed in the absence of bad faith, fraud, capricious

Gillingham v. Cuthbert

88 Pa. D. & C. 319 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 25, 1954

The testimony of a disinterested witness, the purchaser himself, establishes beyond a doubt that it was because of plaintiff’s efforts the transaction was consummated. … Clearly, defendants recognized the original contract, and their obligation to pay, or they would not have written the letter in evidence offering plaintiff a fee of only $130.

Farley v. Stokes

1 Parsons 422 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 26, 1850

What shall constitute a part performance sufficient to take a given case out of the statute, has ever been a vexed question in the Court since chancery has at *428 tempted to qualify the operation of the letter of the statute … established.

Spring Garden Institute v. Wanamaker Institute

56 Pa. D. & C. 406 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 23, 1942

The object and purpose of the corporation in its charter was: “To perpetuate the schools established by the Bethany Presbyterian Church of the City of Philadelphia through the Bethany College; to instruct and educate worthy … A comparison of the respective methods of operation shows quite clearly that the identity of the Wanamaker institute has been maintained to a far greater degree than was the identity of the York County Academy in Jordan’s

Whittington v. Episcopal Hospital

44 Pa. D. & C.4th 449 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 3, 2000

Notwithstanding his ruling, Judge Bernstein reaffirmed the well-established rule under Pennsylvania law that “[a] witness may qualify as an expert if his experience or education logically or fundamentally embraces the sub … (footnote omitted) The facts in the instant matter are clearly distinguishable from the facts in Lavish. Dr.

Jackson v. Rohm & Haas Co.

56 Pa. D. & C.4th 449 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 10, 2002

The exclusive effect of the Act is to immunize an employer from civil suits brought by their employees for *454 work-related injuries. Kline v. Arden H. Verner Co., 503 Pa. 251 , 469 A.2d 158 (1983). … The record clearly reflected that the reason the company employees inquired into the encounter was because an employee reported a claim of sexual harassment in the workplace. Mr.

Davies v. Harrison

3 Pa. D. & C. 481 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 17, 1923

presumption, and it is to be contradicted by the manifestation of a contrary intention; and the primary inquiry in conveyances, as well as in wills, is the intention, and when that appears on the face of the instrument *484 as clearly … Grumbling, 107 Pa. 408 (414), we find this expression: “It may be regarded as settled that even technical words of limitation, found in an executed conveyance, may be so qualified by the context as to make them conform to

Bell v. Cohen

66 Pa. D. & C.2d 300 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 30, 1973

Johanna-defendant, as any commercial defendant, cannot claim immunity from civil suits simply because its negligent behavior was prompted by economic considerations such as meeting its deliveries on time. … He carefully qualified his answers by emphasizing that he did not see the accident, and thus could not know for certain how the accident actually did happen.

Nees v. Anderson

28 Pa. D. & C.5th 539 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 10, 2013

This amendment, therefore, furthered the state interest of fixing a procedural quirk that operated to grant immunity to certain healthcare providers, and restoring a plaintiffs ability to find a venue for a case that was … Because §5322(b) so clearly establishes jurisdiction, this court finds a discussion as to whether a billing system where a patient is treated in New Jersey but receives a bill from Pennsylvania constitutes the doing of business

Clark Estate

75 Pa. D. & C.2d 511 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 16, 1976

Our Supreme Court clearly acknowledged the authority of the legislature to define phrases and establish rules of construction by stating, in Lewis v. … It would be meaningless if her nephew—in the event he had ignored her directions—could then evade this penalty by adopting one or more children who could subsequently qualify as his heirs freed from this attainder.

Gavin v. Philadelphia

24 Pa. D. & C.2d 261 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 25, 1960

The purpose of mandamus is to enforce a right already established, not to inquire and investigate. … Here a qualified and conscientious city employee had indeed a grievance but, unfortunately, no tribunal in which to seek a hearing but a court of equity.

Green v. Pennsylvania Hospital

30 Pa. D. & C.5th 245 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 15, 2013

Glasser established vicarious liability, those witnesses only served to demonstrate that Dr. … The video, thus, also had the potential to mislead the jury as it clearly showed bleeding and injuries completely unsupported by the evidence.

Pollack v. Skinsmart Dermatology & Aesthetic Center P.C.

68 Pa. D. & C.4th 417 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 5, 2004

For this reason, to qualify for protection, the information “must be the particular secrets of the complaining employer, not general secrets of the trade in which he is engaged.” Renee Beauty Salon Inc. v. … Super. 442, 445 , 211 A.2d 11, 13 (1965), which clearly indicates that the claimant must rely on the misrepresentation. Defendants have produced no evidence that they relied on plaintiff’s misrepresentation.

Meade v. Clark

87 Pa. D. & C. 314 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 6, 1952

Only the presence of a clearly defined issue justifies the rendition of a declaratory judgmnt. … The phrase “such others as may from time to time be established by law” had reference to possible future county officers which might be created.

Jackson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania Hospital

40 Pa. D. & C.4th 519 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 22, 1998

The court stated “it naturally followed that appellant would attempt to establish not only the fact that he had sustained an injury, but also the effects thereof. … The plaintiff’s expert testimony clearly expressed that delay in diagnosis and resectioning of the bowel was the cause of decedent’s death.

Schneider v. Sweeney

66 Pa. D. & C. 437 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 5, 1948

Finally, defendant Kane had reason to know or should have known of the condition of the cesspool; this is clearly established by the evidence. … approach to the question, the owner of a property on which there is a cesspool which amounts to a private *444 nuisance per se who has had notice and opportunity to use reasonable diligence in correcting the situation, is not immune

Blastein v. City of Philadelphia

5 Pa. D. & C.2d 385 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 31, 1955

Discussion At the hearings, plaintiff conceded the good faith of the municipal officers in making the award, and also conceded that all of the bidders for the concession were qualified. … establishes that its action was arbitrary or capricious or manifested an abuse of discretion.

Gordon v. Winneberger

16 Pa. D. & C. 505 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 20, 1932

The title company in that case sought to establish its right to maintain a branch office other than in the town where its principal office was located. … because not only is the grant of powers in the Act of May 9,1923, entirely clear, but, as we have attempted to point out, the nature of the institutions of which the stockholders are to be subject to additional liability is clearly