Case law

Altman v. City of Philadelphia

12 Pa. D. & C.2d 621 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 30, 1956

In any event, the list contains too few properties to establish any trend in the property values as a result of the paving and we agree that no useful conclusion can be drawn from it. … For her own position, plaintiff relies chiefly on the evidence of four witnesses whom she qualifies as having special knowledge on the subject.

Cain v. Winter

72 Pa. D. & C.2d 64 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 1, 1975

(hereafter referred to as “Philadelphia Letter”), by its title is clearly identified as a corporate entity. … HISTORY In the early part of 1974, the City Controller, being concerned with the high cost of election printing and the seeming absence of qualified competitive bidders, which might be conducive to the reduction of costs,

Cooper v. Franko

28 Pa. D. & C.4th 44 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 29, 1996

The explanation also qualified as an adequate race-neutral reason for exercising peremptory challenges. … Thus, striking the three jurors in this instance was clearly not an attempt at any race specific discrimination.

Shared Communications Services of 1800 & 1880 JFK, Boulevard Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Properties Inc.

30 Pa. D. & C.4th 323 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 1, 1996

Having succeeded on that score, defendants now seek to turn the coin and claim complete immunity from suit for civil conspiracy to tortiously interfere based on federal antitrust law and policy. … Nowhere does the lease state that the “due date” is established as of the date of an arbitrator’s award.

Peltz v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

63 Pa. D. & C.4th 85 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 13, 2001

Nationwide contends that the language of the policy is unambiguous and “clearly indicates that an actual cash value policy allows for depreciation deductions.” Defendant’s motion at 16. … Nationwide is correct that the policy offers a choice between the replacement cost option, which specifically disallows deduction for depreciation and involves higher premiums, and the ACV option, which fails to define or to qualify

Seltzer Trust

1 Pa. Fid. 232 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 14, 1980

At the hearings before Judge Gutowicz, it was established that the Goldstein trust acquired 245 shares of Fidelco on April 5, 1972, at a cost of $8,999.10. … This testimony, which was unimpeached, clearly showed, as the learned auditing judge correctly found, that the corporate trustee had, in fact, exercised the degree of care and skill which is required by Killey, in the purchase

Heimbecker v. Drudge

22 Pa. D. & C.5th 129 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 31, 2011

The article quoted a Capitol aide who said, “The individual who filed this complaint is clearly a serial litigant. … of Pennsylvania has set a high bar for plaintiffs claiming that a particular statement is susceptible to a defamatory meaning: Words which standing alone may reasonably be understood as defamatory may be so explained or qualified

Rizzo v. Rohrback

8 Pa. D. & C.3d 122 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 23, 1978

. *130 This “one satisfaction” rule, however, clearly contemplates that the initial satisfaction can reasonably be construed as a full and true compensation for the claimed injuries. … Decisional law has established a presumption which operates following an adversary trial on the merits: “With respect to a satisfaction of judgment, however, particularly where, as here, it follows an adversary trial in which

United States Fire Insurance v. American National Fire Insurance

53 Pa. D. & C.4th 474 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 6, 2001

As the insured, plaintiff clearly had the obligation to notify the excess carrier ‘as soon as practicable’ pursuant to the terms of the excess policy. … At most, plaintiff’s evidence established defendant’s erroneous belief that plaintiff’s liability would not exceed the primary policy limits.

Commonwealth v. Sammartino

62 Pa. D. & C.2d 1 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 28, 1973

“This Court is ever mindful of its duty to maintain and establish the proper safeguards in a criminal trial. … He has clearly violated the law for a second time and must be punished accordingly.

Parsky v. First Union Corp.

51 Pa. D. & C.4th 468 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 8, 2001

Super. 403, 409 , 615 A.2d 428, 431 (1992) (“[ojnce a common source of liability has been clearly identified, varying amounts of damages among the plaintiffs will not preclude class certification”), (emphasis in original) … Generally, to have standing, a party must satisfy the following test: “[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

Adams v. Nicholas

1 Miles 90 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 21, 1835

addressing the jury, the case was treated precisely as if he had admitted every thing which the defendant undertook to prove ; whatever, therefore, the evidence conduced to prove for the defendant, was assumed to have been established … The legislature has seldom interfered with it so far even as to qualify its exercise, and for good reason. It constitutes the chief value of property.

Gill v. Pacor, Inc.

24 Pa. D. & C.3d 659 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 13, 1982

I understand negligence. *677 The Court: Standing alone clearly no. … She’s not qualified to testify and give any diagnosis or medical opinion or anything of that sort. But, her’s is a derivative claim based upon her husband’s claim. A wife cannot recover if the husband cannot recover.

Moore v. Caldwell

62 Pa. D. & C. 479 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 25, 1947

The business, owned by J, E, Caldwell & Company, is an old, *480 established one, founded by J. Emott-Caldwell, the great-grandfather of one of the defendants, J. … Whether this critical attitude was well-founded *498 in fact, we are not called upon to find, nor are we qualified to fairly pass upon such a question, since it involves business practices and other factors as to which we