Case law

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

Piazza v. Myers

37 Pa. D. & C.4th 322 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 18, 1997

As the FDA is neither empowered nor qualified to regulate the practice of medicine, its regulatory actions are not relevant to a surgeon’s decision to use the device. … This theory clearly misconstrues the “investigational device exemption” provisions of the MDA.

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employes v. Bucher

73 Pa. D. & C.2d 712 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 7, 1976

That regulation states that the appointing authority may appoint any person as an unskilled laborer, who has passed the qualifying fitness tests. … The stipulation proposed by and between the parties here, in compromise of this controversy, will benefit all litigants and is born of the fact that no arguments of any litigant are so clearly meritorious as to be dispositive

Commonwealth v. Garcia

66 Pa. D. & C.2d 8 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 8, 1974

Secondly, the holdings of the United States Supreme Court in several cases indicate that in order to establish a prima facie case, it is necessary to establish the existence of a nexus between the substantial disparity and … SUBSTANTIAL DISPARITY In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, it is necessary to establish a substantial disparity between the proportion of persons of the group in question who are available for jury

Beck v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

69 Pa. D. & C. 438 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 26, 1949

This use began in 1921, so that when the zoning ordinance became effective on August 10, 1933, it qualified as a nonconforming use. … Secondly, the applicant has not established the hardship requirement set forth in the Ventresca case, nor did the board purport to rest its finding upon such basis.

Commonwealth v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.

13 Pa. D. & C.5th 187 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 25, 2010

(footnote omitted) This trial court denied Janssen’s motion to preclude evidence of damages, by order dated June 3, 2010. *208 The failure of the Commonwealth to clearly identify and articulate its damage calculation prior … Of significant note is that the Commonwealth’s failure to present a qualified economic or financial expert caused it to forego its claim for $20,000,000 for PACE dam *211 ages when the fact witness became “confused”.

Earp's Will

1 Parsons 453 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 4, 1850

That ascertained, gives the law of the case, when such intention does not conflict with certain general and qualifying rules, limiting the extent of testamentary power, which considerations of public policy have established … These dividends and this interest are clearly part of the testator’s general estate. They were sums of money due to the testator, fully ascertained and liquidated.

Weiss v. Weiss

6 Pa. D. & C. 669 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 13, 1925

Laws, 286, it is provided: “All marriages within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity, according to the table established by law, are hereby declared void to all intents and purposes; and it shall and may be lawful for … It may recognize and modify and qualify some foreign laws; it may enlarge or give universal effect to others. It may interdict the administration of some foreign laws; it may favor the introduction of others.

Jeffries-Baxter v. Incognito

76 Pa. D. & C.4th 68 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 26, 2005

Consequently, since plaintiff fails to establish that defendant realtors knew that mold existed at the property, this court must grant summary judgment. 3 III. … Nevertheless, the case law clearly holds that a party cannot justifiably rely upon prior representations yet sign a contract denying the existence of those representations. Id. at 152 , 653 A.2d at 669 .

Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

78 Pa. D. & C.4th 359 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 27, 2005

In addition to the existence of common questions of law and fact, plaintiffs must also establish that the common issues predominate. … Scott Baggett, a highly qualified consulting statistician, the opinion of Martin M.

Pilling v. Moore

15 Pa. D. & C. 509 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 21, 1931

In each of the foregoing classes our previously established rule as to public garages unquestionably applies. … This they undoubtedly were, for they had clearly violated the sweeping injunction issued against them.

Snizavich v. Dow Chemical Co.

27 Pa. D. & C.5th 185 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 19, 2012

Evidence 702, which states: If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge beyond that possessed by a layperson will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified … Although this excess was not clearly linked to specific exposures, jobs, functions or departments at Spring House, it is not entirely possible to rule out *193 a workplace explanation as a result of these analyses.

Incollingo v. Ewing

48 Pa. D. & C.2d 668 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 9, 1969

This argument is clearly without merit. Pa. … The more widespread the improper actions in the profession, the greater the immunity from redress. Such a rule obviously contravenes the fundamentals of civil practice.

Holden's Administrators v. M'Makin

1 Parsons 270 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 8, 1847

For the purpose of more clearly elucidating the opinion which the Court have formed, it becomes important to refer to some elementaly principles relative to the law of partnerships. … But the question of goodwill was not then directly before the Court, or, perhaps, the rule might have been qualified in that particular, as it was a case of professional partnership.

Schumacher v. Swartz

68 Pa. D. & C. 3 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 15, 1948

We can see no sound basis for the objections to such evidence, given as it was by well-qualified experts. … Hughes, was not an instructor and had not been for some years, and therefore was not qualified to pass upon the skill of a student pilot. It *28 would be difficult to find an expert witness better qualified than Hughes.

Portside Investors. L.P. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York

20 Pa. D. & C.5th 497 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 13, 2011

The fact that he has been previously qualified as an expert “in the fields of interpretation of insurance contracts, claims handling procedures, and loss adjustments” qualifies him to testify to valuation in settlement, not … Mahoney is certainly qualified to provide expert testimony on the issue of insurance bad faith.

Group Two Advertising, Inc. v. First Investment Properties, Inc.

27 Pa. D. & C.3d 687 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 2, 1983

Defendant clearly directed and, therefore, anticipated that Group Two would perform the contract in this state. … Nor is defendant licensed, registered or qualified to do business in this state. Defendant has not maintained any office, bank account, registered agent or mailing address in this state. .

Traveler Rubber Co. v. Bergougnan Rubber Corp.

4 Pa. D. & C. 793 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 31, 1924

It had established many agencies and was preparing to manufacture at its factory in course of construction. … There was evidence tending to establish that in the construction of the first grade, straight side Delion tire the wearing strip was a necessary feature for the purpose hereinafter referred to, and thus to qualify it as of

Garbrick Estate

68 Pa. D. & C.2d 599 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 21, 1974

The legal doctrine is well established in Pennsylvania that if the intent of the testator or *606 testatrix can be ascertained from the four corners of the will, there should not be any reason or necessity to look elsewhere … In making its selection among qualified applicants each year, Princeton Theological Semi *608 nary can and will give preference to those students coming from the Philadelphia Presbytery.”

In re Moskowitz

26 Pa. D. & C. 567 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 27, 1936

appellant was convicted and fined for intentionally interfering with an inspector of registration in the performance of his official duties, and that this offense constitutes a willful violation of an election law, has been established … It is clearly our duty to deprive him of the right of suffrage, as the Constitution directs, by dismissing his petition.