Case law

Liberty Place Retail Assocsiates, L.P. v. Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge

35 Pa. D. & C.5th 110 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 7, 2013

Clearly, appellee chose to convene their encampment at Sixteenth and Chestnut in order to reach the broadest audience possible. See N.O.T. July 15, 2013, at 254-58, 277-78; N.O.T. … this court deemed this portion of Munizca’s testimony inadmissible; appellant’s attorney stated that the reading was taken by “somebody out there with a store-bought decibel reading [sic] for our own purposes” who was not qualified

In re Estate of Creamer

41 Pa. D. & C.5th 377 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 30, 2014

In order to qualify as a party in interest, Ms. Smith must satisfy the basic requirements for standing. … An attorney bears the burden of showing facts that establish that he is entitled to the requested compensation. Estate of Preston, 385 Pa. Super. 48, 56 , 560 A.2d 160, 164 (1989).

National Shawmut Bank v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

12 Pa. D. & C. 119 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 18, 1929

That such a provision is valid is long and thoroughly established. It was said by Gibson, J., in Hess v. … . & R. 356, 359: “I see no reason to doubt but that they (partners) may limit their responsibility by an express stipulation made with the party with whom they contract aind clearly understood by him at the time.”

In re Pew Memorial Trust No. 1

5 Pa. D. & C.3d 627 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 30, 1977

Clearly, the oversight could not be corrected by this or any other court. … relationship, and were clearly privileged, Dow cannot establish the necessary causation.

Community Legal Services, Inc.

43 Pa. D. & C.2d 51 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 10, 1967

“The Poor as Consumers “The fact that the poor have little money to spend does not immunize them from consumer problems. … It has been the system devised by the establishment — of the establishment — for the establishment. “To them, the law has been their enemy.

Zwiercan v. General Motors Corp.

68 Pa. D. & C.4th 449 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 4, 2004

In addition to the existence of common questions of law and fact, plaintiffs must also establish that the common issues predominate. … Both are qualified to offer opinions in their field of expertise. Their expert opinion evidence was presented by report, neither testified in court.

Waring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, Inc.

27 Pa. D. & C. 297 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 16, 1936

The weight of authority clearly indicates that every new and innocent product of mental labor must be protected. … The United States Supreme Court decided clearly and conclusively, in Herbert et al. v. The Shanley Co., 242 U.

Van Loan v. Septa

8 Pa. D. & C.3d 25 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 3, 1977

This statute clearly focuses on the actual work of claimant rather than the nature of the employer’s business. … That a qualified and experienced chemist analyzed the cleaning solution C-150 on January 5, 1973, and several days before the hearing at which he testified on November 13, 1975 and on both occasions it contained hydrochloric

Board v. SEPTA

14 Pa. D. & C.5th 301 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 18, 2010

“Once a common source of liability has been clearly identified, varying amounts of damages among the plaintiffs will not preclude class certification.” 24 Where there exists interven *312 ing and possibly superseding causes … In addition to the existence of common questions of law and fact, plaintiffs must also establish that the common issues predominate.

Olympic Paper Co. v. Dubin Paper Co.

60 Pa. D. & C.4th 102 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 29, 2000

(footnotes omitted) Here the record does not clearly demonstrate exactly why Reddy was terminated. … Such proof establishes the requisite element of irreparable harm.

Hill v. Pennsylvania Hospital

70 Pa. D. & C.2d 560 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 29, 1974

Such testimony from a duly qualified medical expert, in response to a comprehensive hypothetical question, conformed with all the applicable rules of evidence, and therefore cannot be viewed as ground for overturning the … Clearly Waldron states that he gave theinjectionintheproperplace, andhehas no recollection of any complaint about it.” The court also thoroughly reviewed the testimony of defendant’s other witnesses, Dr.

Nathan v. Nathan

49 Pa. D. & C.4th 260 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 24, 2000

Santilli also established the events which transpired in 1995. Defendant was present for the January 24, 1995 meeting. (P-12.) … P-18 and P-41 were clearly relevant to the issues being tried.

Gross v. Philadelphia Contributionship

73 Pa. D. & C.2d 654 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 15, 1975

The attorney for the class should be “qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation.” Eisen (II), supra, at 562. … Section 916, which is applicable to defendant corporation, deals only with a minimum surplus and the maintenance of a surplus in excess of the minimum is clearly permissible.

McHenry v. Clark

87 Pa. D. & C. 348 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 1, 1953

This is the universal rule of constitutional law, and in no state has it been more clearly expressed and more uniformly applied than in Pennsylvania.” … However, it should be clearly understood that the use of the term “intra” refers to county functions. In our opinion for the lower court- in the case of Lennox v.

First Republic Bank v. Brand

50 Pa. D. & C.4th 329 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 19, 2000

To have standing, a party must satisfy the following test: *334 “[0]ne ... must show a direct and substantial interest and a sufficiently close causal connection between the challenged action and the asserted injury to qualify … As a result, the letter of intent established a contractual relationship between First Republic and the shareholders. .

Lewis v. Bayer AG

70 Pa. D. & C.4th 52 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 18, 2004

“Once a common source of liability has been clearly identified, varying amounts of damages among the plaintiffs will not preclude class certification.” See Weismer by Weismer v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 419 Pa. … This cannot be established using class-wide proof.

Lewis v. Bayer AG

66 Pa. D. & C.4th 470 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 19, 2004

“Once a common source of liability has been clearly identified, varying amounts of damages among the plaintiffs will not preclude class certification.” See Weismer by Weismer v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 419 Pa. … This cannot be established using class-wide proof.

Hines v. Kosseim

76 Pa. D. & C.4th 247 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 15, 2005

A witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. Pa.R.E. 702. … They are.” 31 Clearly, Dr. Kasper expressed his opinions within the required standard.

Nertavich v. PPL Electric Utilities

31 Pa. D. & C.5th 353 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 14, 2013

Grim, not having been properly trained in climbing poles and having no experience, was not qualified to serve as PPL’s contract field representative. … The contract also called for safety provisions to be followed, and established the position of the PPL contract field representative. PPL’s contract field representative, Mr.

Margolin v. Pennsylvania Railroad

23 Pa. D. & C.2d 477 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 18, 1959

. *489 Even if it were established that an easement was somehow created whether by grant or by prescription, there is nevertheless a basic and fundamental principle which bars recovery by plaintiffs. … These witnesses were qualified' experts. They testified in rebuttal to plaintiffs’ witnesses who said that the bridge enhanced the value of the building. This testimony was therefore properly admitted.