Case law

McClelland v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

23 Pa. D. & C. 597 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 28, 1935

“The appellant claims that the above case does not rule the present, for the reason that Justice Simpson in adopting the restatement of the institute in the words following qualified it by the reference to the Act of Assembly … Clearly the request for the execution of the guarantee would not constitute a request for the cancellation of the contract, nor did the McClelland Company ever consider it as a breach.

Abbotts Dairies, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

87 Pa. D. & C. 197 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 9, 1953

Both the title and body of that act clearly establish that the act is a regulatory measure “for the protection of the public health and to prevent fraud and deception in the manufacture, sale , . . of adulterated and deleterious … that the amount of regulation and examination of business required is in proportion to the number of salesmen employed, and in that sense fees required for salesmen can be called commensurate with the supervision, thereby qualifying

Taylor v. Eden Cemetery Co.

34 Pa. D. & C. 689 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 23, 1939

The several sections of Article VI give the corporation rather free rein to regulate the classification, rights and duties of members by its by-laws. *694 Clearly, the owner of an interest such as that of plaintiff is a member … Furthermore, it is to be noted that the only other persons qualified to vote at meetings of defendant corporation are the owners of lots “containing at least eighty square feet of land in the cemetery of the corporation,”

Neafie Estate

74 Pa. D. & C.2d 380 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 21, 1976

The presumption recognized in Hoover Estate and Hamilton Estate that the words “share and share alike” require each beneficiary to receive an equal share follows precedents that were clearly established at the time testator … and because they do not all reside in this jurisdiction, the auditing judge has concluded, and so directs, that the shares of the distributees who are minors be paid to guardians of their estates when duly appointed and qualified

Peerless Scientific Laundry Co. v. Goldsmith

27 Pa. D. & C. 190 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 20, 1936

to establish or to continue a competitive business of a similar character under a like name: The North American Provision Co. v. … By reason of the facts found in the second, third, fourth, fifth, and twelfth findings of fact, defendant’s twelfth request was clearly refused.

Penneys v. Segal

36 Pa. D. & C.2d 643 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 29, 1965

Clearly, as between Mrs. Daoud and Segal, Segal was not liable on the notes. See First National Bank of Homestead v. Lee, 223 Pa. 305 (1909); Terre Hill National Bank v. Sensenig, 95 Pa. Superior Ct. 368 (1929). … Horrell said that when the establishment of a question of fact depends upon oral testimony, it is for the jury to determine whether the fact in dispute has been established.

Gallucci v. Phillips & Jacobs Inc.

13 Pa. D. & C.4th 413 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 4, 1991

Gallucci, and does not qualify as formal prosecutorial action designed to obtain a criminal conviction. … Supreme Court has clearly defined the constitutional provisions governing the necessity of a search warrant.

Haimes v. Temple University Hospital

39 Pa. D. & C.3d 381 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 7, 1986

He was neither qualified nor offered as an expert witness. In addition, he did not offer an expert opinion on a fact in issue. … Borota had knowledge of and experience with the subject, we found him qualified to testify as an expert.

Lennox v. Clark

87 Pa. D. & C. 289 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 6, 1952

We do not think the considerations before us now were entertained by the Supreme Court in the Carrow case and we cannot accept it for the numerous propositions which defendants contend it establishes. … Clearly such a purpose is within the just scope of legislative power.” In State v. City of Cleveland, 33 N.

Appeal of Pennsylvania Co.

40 Pa. D. & C. 489 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 31, 1940

The legislative purpose to tax clearly appears in the 1939 amendment. … Such an arbitrary discrimination would clearly violate the equal protection clause.” (Italics supplied.)

Celenza v. Ruccia

23 Pa. D. & C. 393 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 2, 1935

It is “clear, precise and *397 unequivocal” and establishes clearly that it was her money which paid for the property, not only the down money but also that paid at final settlement, and none of it was contributed by or for … True, in that sentence he used “propertys” to indicate personalty, but he qualified it with “movible personal”, so that the inference is that if he had intended to limit the “propertys”, to which he referred in the second

In re the Estate of Eckstein

1 Parsons 59 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 12, 1842

The extent of this power in the Chancellor, does not appear in England to be very clearly defined, unless this has been accomplished by recent statutes. … This probably arises from the qualified nature of their jurisdiction over the property of lunatics.

Petrecca v. Allstate Insurance

53 Pa. D. & C.4th 1 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 9, 2001

When Allstate issued a denial letter it did not clearly state the reason for the denial. The Petreccas were left at sea. 3. … I don’t think he is qualified. “The court: If that’s the only objection, then his opinion as to the amount of damages and the cost of repair is admissible. I’ll accept his opinion.” Mr.

Duffy Estate

68 Pa. D. & C.2d 531 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 25, 1974

And that where a co-owner is able to prove such access through a qualified agent, he has a present, unrestricted and immediate right of possession so that tax liability is limited to one-half the value of the bonds. … The major premise and the minor premise as stated in the above syllogism are clearly established by our Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, the conclusion of no tax in the present case does logically and fairly result.

Cruz v. Northeastern Hospital

54 Pa. D. & C.4th 8 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 11, 2001

Cohen was qualified to testify as an expert in pediatric neurology. … The evidence establishes that Dr.

Rentschler Estate

11 Pa. D. & C.2d 357 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 7, 1957

On April 17,1956, upon petition averring was “neither fit, competent nor' qualified to act as trustee” of the trust for Annie E. … The time for us to act is now, while the assets of this estate are in this respondent’s possession (even though in a qualified degree).

Cook v. S. Walter Packaging Corp.

71 Pa. D. & C.4th 383 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 8, 2005

When considering whether the record supports the trial court’s decision, the court generally defers to the trial court’s judgment because, by virtue of its position, it is uniquely qualified to determine factual matters. … Based upon the above analysis, the jury’s award of $680,000 is clearly against the weight of evidence presented at trial.

SKF Industries, Inc. v. Local No. 2898 United Steelworkers of America

56 Pa. D. & C. 149 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 29, 1945

Columbia Super Cleaners, Inc., et al., 332 Pa. 71, 75 (1938) : “There is thus established a general class of cases iri which the court is vested with jurisdicton to grant in-junctive relief. … A reading of section 6 shows clearly the intention of the legislature by the qualifying words “peaceably”, “lawful” and “not involving misrepresentation, fraud, duress, violence, breach of the peace”, etc.

Newberg v. Board of Public Education

26 Pa. D. & C.3d 682 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 28, 1983

This private foundation is the “Mary Gaston Barnwell Foundation” (“Barn-well Foundation”) established following the death of James G. … trial court declined to accept pendant jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim under Pennsylvania’s Equal Rights Amendment “since standards governing the applicability of this amendment in the educational field have not been clearly

Staton Appeal

47 Pa. D. & C.2d 657 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 11, 1969

Clearly, appellant did not have the opportunity to cross examine the persons whose statements *672 were used against him. … Thus, under Garner it was clearly not necessary for appellant’s answers to be knowing and voluntary to be admissible before the commission.