Case law

Commonwealth v. Talbert

2015 Pa. Super. 269 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2015

. 3 Raheim Aimes (“Aimes”), who worked for Talbert at a barbershop, entered a guilty plea for a firearms possession charge arising out of the same incident, and testified for the Commonwealth at trial under a grant of immunity … that [Talbert] was the author of the lyrics and failed to establish that the lyrics, in fact, pertained to the incident in question?

Carroll v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

420 Pa. Super. 215 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1992

At the Arbitration Hearing, it was established that the motor vehicle accident occurred in Delanco[,] New Jersey. At that time, [the plaintiff] was living with her father in New Jersey. … Williams, 481 Pa. 130, 139 , 392 A.2d 281 (1978) (Question of stacking coverages is clearly one of law). Therefore, it was proper for the court of common pleas to review the conclusions of the arbitrators. Utica, supra.

Fisher v. Ruch

12 Pa. Super. 240 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1900

Proof that he respected them would not be a conclusive answer to the charge of negligence, nor would proof of his disobedience of them establish the charge. … He was *247 qualified by experience, knowledge of the subject and the conditions to express an opinion as to the effect of the proper and skilful use of explosives upon adjacent properties.

TIERI v. Orbell

192 Pa. Super. 612 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1960

Hence the testimony of the plaintiff, and of Cohen, who acted for the claimants in preparing the agreement of sale, was clearly admissible to establish the meaning of the phrase as intended by the parties.” … Conceivably the qualifying clause in the agreement could have been clearer but it certainly does give to the buyer the right to seek his own mortgage, and he cannot be forced to go ahead with the purchase by having thrust

Com. v. Beatty, B.

227 A.3d 1277 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2020

Tuff testified that he had no agreement with the Commonwealth as to his pending charges in exchange for his testimony, and had not been offered immunity by the Commonwealth for his testimony. … [t]hat [Appellant] was clearly engaging in a life of dealing drugs and profiting from that drug trade. This was not an isolated incident.

Lewis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

187 Pa. Super. 109 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 1958

Congressional legislation, but the principle is sound and applicable, and therefore we adopt it, and hold that a concerted cessation of work after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, in the absence of other and qualifying … The Kendall and Leto cases are clearly distinguishable from the present case.

Estate of Shelly

319 Pa. Super. 574 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1983

Evidence established that she gave constant attention to this foundation, as a means of carrying out her charitable impulses. There was, of course, no “husband Peter S. … Justice Roberts further stated that “decedent’s clearly expressed intention was to benefit the charitable Roberts Shelly Foundation as residuary beneficiary.”

McGinnis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

38 Pa. Super. 390 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1909

In the clause relied upon by the counsel for the defendant, the words “interest, title or possession” are qualified by the phrase “except change of occupants without increase of hazard.” … That case and the cases therein cited, and distinguished, establishes the right of the present plaintiff to sue and recover in his own name, on the facts in this case. In the case of Planters’ Mut. Ins. Assn. v.

Simmons v. Mullen

231 Pa. Super. 199 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1974

Romano was an eminently qualified psychologist. … Clearly, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his injuries were proximately caused by the defendant’s negligence. Medical testimony, however, is not always necessary to make the causal link. In Tabuteau v.

Chongqing Kangning Bio. v. Conrex Pharmaceutical

327 A.3d 209 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2024

. §411 (in light of the numerous transactions between the parties in Pennsylvania, [CKB] acquiring [Conrex’s] trademark, and [CKB] seeking [Conrex’s] assistance in establishing operations in the United … Clearly, questions of subject-matter jurisdiction are beyond the purview of any jury to render a verdict upon, because, as stated above, “[j]urisdiction is purely a question of law . . . .”

Jahanshahi v. Centura Development Co., Inc.

2003 Pa. Super. 43 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2003

Therefore, the trial court did not err by qualifying him as an expert witness. III. … The Court’s decision was a matter of fairness, but certainly did not establish such an award as a matter of right.

Com. v. Roberts, W.

293 A.3d 1221 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

Roberts, who testified in his own defense, argues that his “mindset was very clearly established at trial.” Robert’s Brief at 15. … He bases this assertion upon his testimony regarding his subjective “understanding that he would have to register for ten years following the Westmoreland County qualifying conviction.” Id.

Gamesa Energy United States, LLC v. Ten Penn Ctr. Assocs., L.P.

181 A.3d 1188 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2018

The Lease clearly specified Gamesa would be in default if it vacated the Premises. … Super. 1962) (finding a statement is properly qualified as an explanation of a course of conduct if it is “evidence as to the reason action is taken[]”).

Brennan v. Brennan

281 Pa. Super. 362 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1980

Of *368 course we are also requested to determine, in particular, whether the facts of record in the instant case may qualify for the application of the general principle. … The privilege has also been firmly established in our common or decisional law.

Commonwealth v. Pytak

278 Pa. Super. 476 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1980

Clearly, the knowledge possessed by Patrolman Harbst was sufficient to support the arrest made by Trooper Sepkowski. … Combined with the previously demonstrated reliability of the informer, this information was sufficient to establish a need to act swiftly.

In the Interest of Justin S.

375 Pa. Super. 88 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 1988

Further, a child who has been adjudged dependent may not be removed from parental custody unless such separation is clearly necessary. … The lower court adjudicated the child to be dependent without establishing whether the non-custodial father was able to provide proper parental care and control.

Commonwealth v. Clewell

49 Pa. Super. 389 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1912

Hence, the qualifying word “yellow.” … The offer to introduce a sample of what was alleged to be yellow butter for the purpose of establishing a standard of comparison without offering to show that the proposed standard was in fact butter was clearly inadmissible

Commonwealth v. Snowdy

412 Pa. Super. 493 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1992

Garcia, 403 Pa.Super. 280 , 588 A.2d 951 (1991) (ien banc), we stated: To qualify as an expert witness, a witness need only have a “reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge,” on a subject for which expert testimony … While our review of appellant’s brief demonstrates that he does not mention the term "demurrer’’ in connection with the arguments at issue in this discussion, we believe that his challenges clearly relate to *497 the alleged

Parkins v. Hillman C. & C. Co.

114 Pa. Super. 358 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1934

On the night of the explosion the decedent, who had been qualified for a first-grade mine foreman’s certificate, was employed as an assistant mine foreman and fire boss in charge of sections 102 and 103 west entries, in which … The burden to establish that the injury was caused by the violation of the law is upon the employer and as was said in Labuck v.

Bergman v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

1999 Pa. Super. 300 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 1999

The trial court must determine whether the necessity for the testimony exists and whether the witness is qualified to testify. Ruzzi v. … F.T.P., Inc., 248 N.J.Super. 468 , 591 A.2d 682 (A.D.1991), affirmed, 127 N.J. 94 , 602 A.2d 733 (1992) (concluding that expert testimony unnecessary to establish standard of care of insurance broker); Shamalon Bird Farm,