Case law

Thibodeau v. Comcast

78 Pa. D. & C.4th 507 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 24, 2006

The court found that because the effect of enforcement agreement was corporate immunity, preclusion of class action litigation was unconscionable. *524 “This provision is clearly meant to prevent customers, such as Mr. … It is clearly contrary to public policy to immunize large corporations from liability by allowing them to preclude all class action litigation or in arbitration. *528 The preclusion of classwide litigation or classwide arbitration

Parker v. Keystone Insurance

21 Pa. D. & C.3d 617 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 9, 1981

“The forementioned provision clearly evidences the Legislature’s intention to allow the recovery of attorney’s fees [and costs], in No-fault actions only *626 where there is a showing of the obligor’s bad faith denial of … This court finds it unnecessary to deal extensively with the threshold issue of whether petitioner-husband qualifies as a “survivor.”

Holloway Estate

50 Pa. D. & C.2d 667 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 12, 1970

A long line of cases clearly establishes that prior to the passage of the Wills Act of 1917, adopted children could not participate in the distribution of estates when testamentary gifts were made to children or issue: Schafer … Under the very terms of this act, therefore, the claimant does not qualify as a “child” let alone as “issue.”

Torlade D'Azambuja v. Barrozo Pereira

1 Miles 366 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 20, 1830

The single question now to be determined is, Has the defendant established his claim of privilege as charge d’affaires of the kingdom of Portugal, so as to entitle him to be discharged from the process issued against him … The end and design of embassies render tire privileges of ambassadors necessary ; for if they can treat with the prince to whom they are sent with full independence, they will be much better qualified to perform their duty

Jenkins v. Marina District Development Co.

16 Pa. D. & C.5th 327 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 23, 2010

Bryn Mawr Hospital, 525 Pa. 237, 240 , 579 A.2d 1282, 1283 (1990). *337 Marina clearly does not meet the criteria of part (1), (3), and (4). … Walker Oriental Rug Galleries Inc., where the company was found to have contact with the venue because it, “clearly does business over the Internet” and the contact, “occurs when ‘a user can exchange information with the

Levy v. Teamsters' Trust Fund

17 Pa. D. & C.3d 524 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 30, 1980

Clearly, this provision does not require that such contributions were actually paid. … by law or within such longer period as may be established by the trustees.

Sheeran v. Kubert, Himmelstein & Associates P.C.

69 Pa. D. & C.4th 303 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 27, 2003

(1) All persons entitled to a jury trial in a civil action, or criminal proceeding shall have the right to jurors selected at random from a representative cross-section of the eligible population of the county. “(2) All qualified … Therefore, defendants’ contention directly contradicts the clearly stated public policy of this Commonwealth announced in 42 Pa.C.S. §4501(2).

Nelson v. Pennsylvania Railroad

8 Pa. D. & C.2d 221 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Nov 20, 1956

While the cross-examination of Wilson quite clearly established that he had no definite plans tc go to Topeka, Kansas, and very likely would not go there, it just as clearly established that Wilson is the type of person who … Therefore, since his testimony may well be lost to plaintiff if not taken in advance of trial, he would appear to qualify as a “going witness.”

Barrett v. Rendell

33 Pa. D. & C.3d 265 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 31, 1984

In reaching its conclusion, the Commonwealth Court emphasized that “the regulation in question is clearly applicable to the appellant.” Id. … In the instant case, in contrast, defendant has failed to cite any clearly applicable civil service regulation that would require plaintiff to take a polygraph test.

Hunsicker v. Insurance Co. of North America

47 Pa. D. & C.2d 164 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 9, 1969

Clearly, this cannot be construed as a description and enumeration of the stamps contained in the volume. … We have concluded that, while P-3 is relevant, it is clearly hearsay and does not qualify under any of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule.

DeVeaux v. City of Philadelphia

75 Pa. D. & C.4th 315 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 14, 2005

burdens 3 upon the free exercise of religion without compelling justification. 4 It appears to be undisputed, and in any event the record clearly establishes, that Fire Department Directive no. 13 imposes a substantial burden … However, even if plaintiff’s expert was not qualified, the City still has not shown its safety justification to be compelling.

McCarthy v. Panaccio

49 Pa. D. & C.2d 501 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 24, 1969

Preferences are established on petition to the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States Department of Justice. … Admittedly, defendant is not a lawyer authorized to practice in any jurisdiction and, clearly, is not eligible to practice before the Immigration and Naturalization Service under their rules of practice: Sperry v.

Devlin v. City of Philadelphia

48 Pa. D. & C.4th 86 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 5, 2000

EXTENSION OF MUNICIPAL BENEFITS TO PERSONS QUALIFYING AS LIFE PARTNERS The plaintiffs contend that Philadelphia County is without power to extend municipal benefits to persons qualifying as “life partners.” … In this respect, the burden rests upon the challenger to prove clearly, plainly and palpably that it violates a constitutional provision such as the uniformity clause. Id. at 60 , 279 A.2d at 65; see also, F.J.

Blair v. Motor Carriers Service Bureau, Inc.

40 Pa. D. & C. 413 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Mar 2, 1939

Suits by members of the bar for injunctions to restrain the practice of law by laymen are an established procedure in our State: Shortz et al. v. Farrell, 327 Pa. 81 (1937); Childs et al. v. Smeltzer, 315 Pa. 9 (1934). … resolutions, required in connection with the organization of a corporation, necessarily includes the giving of advice concerning matters of law, and insofar as they create, modify, surrender, or secure legal rights their drafting clearly

Grasso v. City of Philadelphia

89 Pa. D. & C. 136 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 14, 1954

Those who fail to so qualify shall be dismissed from their positions within thirty days after the establishment of an eligible list for their respective positions. … This clearly indicates the scheme of employment between the city as employer and one of its employes who held a position in one of the departments of the city at the adoption of the charter.

Speight v. Mahalis

8 Pa. D. & C.5th 49 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · May 28, 2008

be qualified to present his expertise to the jury. … The foundation was established by plaintiffs’ counsel and the officer did present his conclusions. N.T. 42-45, 50.

In re Testamentary Trust of Conti

41 Pa. D. & C.5th 134 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 17, 2014

HERRON, J., The account filed by trustee Wells Fargo Bank and a related petition filed by beneficiaries of a testamentary trust established by decedent John Conti raise the issue of whether this court should approve a nonjudicial … In terms of this act, the petition of Wells Fargo Bank seeking court approval of its resignation is fairly straightforward and implicates clearly applicable PEF Code provisions.

Sudarkasa v. Glanton

57 Pa. D. & C.4th 472 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 30, 2002

STANDARD OF REVIEW Motion for Nonsuit The standard for deciding whether to grant a nonsuit is well-established in this Commonwealth. … A compulsory nonsuit is properly granted where a plaintiff has *478 “failed to establish a right to relief.” Pa.R.C.P. §230.1.

Kelsey Estate

11 Pa. D. & C.2d 757 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 16, 1957

stock which did not so qualify. … restriction on stock which does not so qualify.

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Philadelphia

83 Pa. D. & C. 537 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Dec 2, 1952

That this was in excess of the power of the contracting board is established by abundant authority.” … Philadelphia, 322 Pa. 535 (1936); Annotation, “Cleaning and sprinkling of streets as governmental or private function as regards municipal immunity from liability for tort,” 156 A. L. R. 692. See also Healy v.