Case law

Gerhart v. Cathedral Village

25 Pa. D. & C.3d 430 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 7, 1982

The court ruled that an option to terminate expressed in unqualified terms is not to be qualified by requiring a reason for its exercise. … The contract here in suit may very well be held to fall clearly within the interdict of specific performance set forth in these authorities.

Prince Hall Grand Lodge v. National Grand Lodge

37 Pa. D. & C.2d 65 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 9, 1962

Proof of authenticity is likewise clearly established by the evidence with respect to plaintiff organization in the Court of Common Pleas No. 2 action, “The United Supreme Council Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry … His position in Masonry fully qualified him as an expert in Masonic affairs. The following excerpts from his testimony at page 405, et seq., are pertinent to the issue: “Q.

Stanford v. Moore

29 Pa. D. & C.5th 152 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 14, 2013

Discovery matters are dealt with pretrial and in accordance with the case management directives established at the beginning of the case. … Further, there was no offer of proof that Officer Dill was qualified to make an opinion, as a police officer, regarding the appellant’s deteriorating condition over time.

Consulting Engineers Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America

37 Pa. D. & C.4th 339 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 5, 1997

Thus, a claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings qualifies as malicious prosecution for the purpose of insurance coverage. Northwestern National Casualty *345 Co. v. Century III Chevrolet Inc., 863 F. Supp. 247 (W.D. … These policies were clearly written on an “occurrence basis.”

Commonwealth v. Philip Morris Inc.

40 Pa. D. & C.4th 225 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 26, 1999

Even a cursory analysis of this definition suggests its complexity, with distinct qualifiers and limitations. … First, the activists have not established the requisite standing.

Holmes v. University of Pennsylvania Health System

82 Pa. D. & C.4th 363 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 28, 2007

Clearly, the issues at the administrative hearing and the issues at trial were very different, and required different burdens of proof. … There is no testimony establishing which entity is the proper employer.

Sutch v. Roxborough Memorial Hospital

47 Pa. D. & C.5th 69 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 15, 2015

Plaintiff-Estate did establish a prima facie case that the STAT report was delivered to Dr. Geller as the emergency room physician. … Justice Brennan recognized only a “qualified right” in civil cases to retain an attorney of one’s choice (Brennan, J. Concurring Opinion, 472 U.S. at 441-442 ).

Lewis v. Letito

29 Pa. D. & C.4th 550 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 15, 1995

Horowitz believed was necessary to establish causation. Dr. … D-l, pp. 36, 40-42.) 3 This testimony was clearly admissible and in fact not objected to under the theory enunciated in Primavera v. Celotex Corp., 415 Pa.

Abbott v. Mackinley

2 Miles 220 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 15, 1838

Upon this question the evidence convinces me that no agency was believed to exist by either of the parties, and that none existed except that qualified sort of agency which the law will presume to support an action on the … given to the wife, but I instructed them, that if they found the existence of a certain state of facts, the law would then form its own conclusion, irrespective of the question of giving credit, and would thus, of course, clearly

Ziring v. Heidmann

54 Pa. D. & C.2d 254 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 1, 1971

Plaintiff was a covered employe under the pension plan established by the company. … It is the contention of the trustees that their determination that plaintiff’s activities had caused him to forfeit his rights in the pension plan is clearly reasonable.

Eisen v. Independence Blue Cross

62 Pa. D. & C.4th 279 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 26, 2002

“(B) are essential to improve the beneficiary’s net health outcome and may be as beneficial as any established alternatives; “(C) are as cost-effective as any established alternatives; and “(D) are not solely for the beneficiary … (internal citations and footnote omitted) “Once a common source of liability has been clearly identified, varying amounts of damages among the plaintiffs will not preclude class certification.” Weismer by Weismer v.

Nicholson-Upsey v. Touey

30 Pa. D. & C.5th 168 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 6, 2013

Clearly there was proper venue in Philadelphia. 2. … He was certainly qualified to testify to standard of care, but was not asked to on direct examination. 113 Dr.

Pioneer Commercial Funding Corp. v. American Financial Mortgage Corp.

50 Pa. D. & C.4th 31 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 4, 2000

The plaintiff clearly established at trial that both the loan and security agreement and the Flatley guaranty were valid contracts, and that both parties breached those contracts. … The jury clearly indicated their answer to the question of classification of the account.

Rouse Philadelphia, Inc. v. Ad Hoc '78

19 Pa. D. & C.3d 627 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 31, 1979

Defendants’ testimony clearly indicates the motivation underlying the boycott. … Vogt, Inc., 354 U.S. 284 , 77 S.Ct. 1166 , 1 L.Ed. 2d 1347 (1957), the Supreme Court clearly established the principle that picketing-conduct or picketing-speech which is conducted for a purpose contrary to state law or state

Neuman v. Schweidel

50 Pa. D. & C. 311 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 25, 1944

Corn Exchange, one of the defendants, qualified as executor of his will, and came into possession of Stein’s shares. … In view of this, the learned judge was clearly right in rejecting the evidence of the value of the lease, as bearing upon the question of the damages.

In re Onorato

39 Pa. D. & C.5th 280 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 1, 2014

The power of attorney signed by Mary Green in 2006 is clearly subject to these statutory provisions. … The record therefore establishes that Mr.

Neill v. Wall & Ochs, Inc.

68 Pa. D. & C.2d 429 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 12, 1973

Moreover, in order to qualify to take said examination, an applicant must meet the following minimum educational requirements: A. … With respect to this contention, the record clearly refutes this argument.

Bank of Kentucky v. Schuylkill Bank

1 Parsons 180 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 28, 1846

The transactions of this agency are such as, in my opinion, bring this case clearly within Baron Alexander’s limit. … The authority to establish such agencies, if it exists at all, is found in the 26th sect, of the Act of the Kentucky legislature, “ to establish the Bank of Kentucky.”

Rialto Building & Loan Ass'n v. Commonwealth Title Co.

26 Pa. D. & C. 477 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 14, 1936

Garden Terrace was clearly intended to be a street, for otherwise there would have been no outlets to A and B except the narrow frontages on Louden Street and Stenton Avenue. … Rev. 43. *483 We therefore have no difficulty in holding that a mortgagee qualifies as a purchaser in respect to rights in the use of Garden Terrace as a street.

Philadelphia v. Spangler

9 Pa. D. & C. 577 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 14, 1927

The lines established by the Ordinance of June 8, 1909, were confirmed by the Board of Surveyors and placed on the City plan on Sept. 20, 1909, and the lines thus established, subject to certain minor modifications not affecting … As stated in 1 Corpus Juris, 372, abuse of discretion is “a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence; a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment— one that is clearly