Case law

Vitacolonna v. City of Philadelphia

2 Pa. D. & C.2d 761 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 17, 1954

(b) it establishes a continuous electrical ground avoiding severe electrical shocks to persons placing or removing the meter. … In the Ordinance of December 2, 1916, such necessity was clearly recognized in sections 4 and 5 quoted in full in our footnote 1 above.

Bailey Estate

55 Pa. D. & C.2d 574 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 23, 1971

In so doing, Judge Bolger relied on the rulings of our Supreme Court in Slavinski Estate, 420 Pa. 504 (1966), and Rogan Estate, 404 Pa. 205 (1961), which clearly sustain him. … by the admissions of the claimant could not qualify as a will.

Saslaff v. Equitable Life Assurance Society

11 Pa. D. & C.3d 398 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 12, 1979

Code, §§21.12-21.17, wherein the registered nurse only is specifically delegated the responsibilities to (a) administer anesthesia; (b) perform immunizations and skin testing; (c) utilize monitoring, defibrillating, and resuscitating … an inducement offer by employer in employment with that firm,” or in her argument that Equitable has premised its case on the affirmative defense of an “exclusion” in the policy which Equitable not only has the burden to establish

Treen Estate

13 Pa. D. & C.3d 115 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 31, 1979

it can effectually operate. *120 The focal point is that portion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities … We recognize that by this adjudication we are, as a result of legislative and judicial fiat, subverting the clearly expressed intent of the testatrix when we direct that the trustees and their subordinate selection committee

Salva v. Harvey Industries

13 Pa. D. & C.5th 511 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 15, 2010

Clearly, the building code requirements are meant to insure that the roof and the building thereunder are weatherproof. … The employer was immunized from suit by the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. (citations omitted)

Grimani Estate

1 Pa. Fid. 204 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 21, 1980

Any matter involving a decedent’s estate is sufficient for the orphans’ court to establish jurisdiction. … That would certainly be a novel 'contact’ for establishing and keeping jurisdiction. State interest and policy are the next consideration.

White v. City of Philadelphia

22 Pa. D. & C.2d 13 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 2, 1959

It appears that pursuant to the authority of the ordinance, the authority will purchase or condemn the properties, repair them and rent them to qualified low income families. *14 Plaintiffs filed a complaint in equity seeking … The act clearly distinguishes buildings and improvements, i.e., improvements encompasses all facilities ancillary to buildings such as streets, sewers, lights, etc.

Poe v. Hatton

20 Pa. D. & C.5th 1 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 27, 2010

Hatton or his family, under the immense stress that they were clearly under, to be so diligent to “figure out” the inexplicable errors and omissions of any service that may have been received. … “The law does not establish a specific time period within which a petition to open a judgment must be filed to qualify as timely.

McGlinchey v. Union Carbide Corp.

55 Pa. D. & C.2d 659 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 16, 1970

Viewed in the light of the peril warned against, we find that the attempted notice was clearly insufficient. There was no evidence that the warning was observed by any of Mat-lack’s employes. … He aspired to be an over-the-road truck driver, was qualified for that position and his union representative was working to have him placed in that position with Matlack at the time of his death.

Repici Estate

58 Pa. D. & C.2d 576 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 7, 1972

By reason of his being so qualified, his beneficiary is entitled to receive payments of $5,944.56 per year for life. Both Mr. … Clearly, the value of the conveyance in this case was more than just the accumulated contributions.

Seidman v. Wilder Industries Inc.

46 Pa. D. & C.3d 385 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 14, 1987

Clearly plaintiffs’ plans and customer lists fall within this broad field of knowledge and may properly be the subject matter of a trade secret. Pressed Steel Car Co. v. … The judicial role in the grant or denial of summary judgment has been clearly defined.

Liebtag v. Dilworth

25 Pa. D. & C.2d 221 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 11, 1961

The current of all authority establishes that it is. In Blair v. … But such limited “expertese” would clearly not qualify plaintiff to present cases before the courts nor can it avail him to practice law before the zoning board.

Checchio v. Frankford Hospital

35 Pa. D. & C.4th 143 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 8, 1998

The doctor clearly testified that PDD includes autistic behavior and it includes autism. Deposition transcript, p. 48. Dr. Stavis disagreed with plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. … Mauk clearly stated that an autistic disorder cannot be caused by moderate to severe mental retardation. As stated by the doctor, “They are associated disorders. One does not cause the other.” See id. at 28-29.

Seibert Trust

71 Pa. D. & C. 76 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 26, 1949

The intervening life tenancies created by this deed of trust establish the persons whom settlor wished to favor to the extent of his bounty. … It is immaterial, therefore, to determine whether settlor believed William Seibert Sampson would qualify as a member of the class of persons entitled to share in the distribution of principal.

Commonwealth v. Jones

9 Pa. D. & C.4th 48 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 28, 1990

Defendant further argues that the court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to death-qualify the jury, in not declaring a mistrial and not sustaining certain defense objections based on prosecutorial misconduct, for refusing … The New York and Pennsylvania crimes are clearly substantially equivalent and defendant was properly sentenced to life in prison under 42 Pa.C.S. §9715.

Joner v. Made-Rite Paper Box Co.

21 Pa. D. & C.2d 710 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 28, 1959

In passing, it may be noted, therefore, that the agreement itself clearly shortchanges claimant of one week of compensation. … Earl McBride shows very clearly that Dr. McBride is talking of anatomical disability, and that only.

In re Franklin Trust Co.

30 Pa. D. & C. 123 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 26, 1937

First National Bank, 316 Pa. 23, 25 , the court said: “Appellee admits that it is established that where there are no circumstances or contractual provisions other than a deposit of money in a bank, with a direction to pay … R. 334); and the same is true where the money has been clearly set aside for the payment of bond coupons: Rogers Locomotive Works v. Kelley, 88 N. Y. 234 .”

Subbiondo v. Temple University

21 Pa. D. & C.3d 689 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 5, 1981

Schaefer was never qualified to approve; Drs. Meroney and Matonis never approved; only Dr. Lebofsky approved). *697 25. … He has never qualified for the award of the degree. Mr.

Transeau v. City of Philadelphia

57 Pa. D. & C. 359 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 26, 1946

In the exercise of his right under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth as a resident and qualified elector of the City of Philadelphia absent therefrom while employed in the service of the State, plaintiff voted … Its purpose is clearly to protect such a person in the retention of the residence of his choice by forbidding, first, his physical absence being deemed proof of its loss, and second, his presence at the place of his employment

Campbell v. Temple University

78 Pa. D. & C.4th 1 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 10, 2005

The record clearly illustrates that the jury intentionally awarded the plaintiff the value of her stipulated medical expenses. … Her testimony established that she might have been a few feet outside the confines of the crosswalk when she fell.