Case law

In Re Barnes Foundation

449 Pa. Super. 81 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1996

[That] museum is a premier facility with personnel qualified to safely handle, exhibit and secure the Foundation’s art in a suitable environment. 7. … The Haus der Kunst is a premier art facility qualified to handle, exhibit and secure the Foundation’s art in a suitable environment. 3.

Commonwealth v. Henkel

2007 Pa. Super. 333 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2007

At trial, Matthew Henkel was the prosecution’s chief witness; he testified against appellants in exchange for immunity. Trial Court Opinion at 8. … Clearly, such an offense merits a severe penalty. Id. at 847.

In the Interest of: S.U., a Minor

204 A.3d 949 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2019

Further, the record established that the notice of the hearing provided Father with information as to the office he was required to contact to re-qualify for counsel. See Shelter Care Order, 5/1/17. … Whether the [trial c]ourt erred in concluding that the evidence clearly and convincingly established that [C]hild is a dependent child pursuant to the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act at 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302

Constantakis, K. v. Bryan Advisory

275 A.3d 998 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2022

Notably, once speech has been published, the speech and/or the speaker are no longer immune from consequences, including censure. Id. Indeed, Art. … “Depending upon the importance of the publisher’s actions to society, the privilege may be absolute or conditional/qualified.” Id. Compare Baird v.

Commonwealth v. Quiles

2017 Pa. Super. 197 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2017

Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to establish that the Appellant has a conviction for Assault. … Appellant further argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish under which Connecticut statute he was convicted.

Bolinger v. Barnhardt

64 Pa. Super. 243 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1916

Possession has by law a qualified property attached to it, which is valid until a better right be shown; and one who is in actual possession of land may, therefore, maintain trespass qu. cl. freg. against a mere intruder. … Bolinger made a deed to Samuel Bolinger for the southern part of the McMullen tract, that being the part that had been awarded to him in the alleged parol partition, but clearly the giving and acceptance of this deed did

Mansfield's Case

22 Pa. Super. 224 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1903

the provision with regard to delinquent children, the violation of article 3, section 3, of the constitution: “ No bill, except general appropriation bills, shall be passed containing more than one subject which shall be clearly … of article 8, section 7, of the constitution, which forbid the passage of any special law regulating practice and jurisdiction in judicial proceedings, or granting to any individual any special or exclusive privilege or immunity

Hartley v. Hartley

154 Pa. Super. 176 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 1943

After the respondent appealed, the court below, pursuant to our Rule 58, filed an opinion in which, inter alia, it said: “The testimony establishes one absolute certainty, that *178 these people were incompatible and that … “Where both parties are nearly equally at fault, so that neither can clearly be said to be ‘the injured and innocent spouse,’ [within the meaning of The Divorce Law of *179 May 2, 1929, P.

Robec, Inc. v. Poul

452 Pa. Super. 264 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1996

All three elements must be satisfied for an order to qualify for review under the doctrine. Id. … The importance of the asserted right must be established. In re Estate of Israel, supra.

Commonwealth ex rel. Cambria County v. Lloyd

2 Pa. Super. 6 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 1896

keep a correct record of their proceedings and the books pertaining to the office is a necessary incident thereto, and from the first organization of counties in this commonwealth to the present time persons peculiarly qualified … Green, 58 Pa. 226 , the title was “An act to establish a criminal court for Dauphin, Lebanon and Schuylkill counties.”

Com. v. Bostian, B.

2020 Pa. Super. 116 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2020

Our Supreme Court explained the clearly erroneous exception as follows. … Super. 2019), to support the application of the clearly erroneous exception to the coordinate jurisdiction rule. See Commonwealth Brief at 13-14.

Commonwealth v. Herr

39 Pa. Super. 454 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1909

Com., 8 Pa. 312 , and have not been questioned or qualified in any later case that has come to our notice, seem to be very pertinent. … It was there held in a well-considered opinion that a regulation established by the state superintendent of public instruction, who had implied authority under the statute to establish regulations as to the management of

Commonwealth v. Stilley

455 Pa. Super. 543 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1997

Peifer who was not qualified to render an expert opinion that the complaining witness was suffering from an overdose of GHB; (b) Mr. Stretton failed to conduct voir dire of Dr. … Hayes who was not qualified to render an expert opinion that the complaining witness was suffering from an overdose of GHB; (c) Mr.

Forest City Grant Liberty Associates v. Genro II, Inc.

438 Pa. Super. 553 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1995

The only way to guarantee that Universal correctly distinguished between damaged and undamaged insulation would have been to assign a qualified expert to monitor the repairs daily. … However, the stipulation of facts submitted by the parties clearly establishes that RMax paid $70,332.76 toward the self-insured retention and that the court should have subtracted $4,667.24 from RMax’s recovery.

Com. v. Kling, J.

2026 Pa. Super. 11 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2026

By its terms, however, the statute does not limit in any way which 3802 offenses qualify. … According to Kling, these cases “clearly demonstrate that even a sober motorist may refuse to yield to another vehicle as they approach a merge point.” Id. at 29.

James v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

312 Pa. Super. 512 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1983

In order to apply the heightened scrutiny test, the purpose of the statute must be established. … The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the legislation "clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution." Hayes v.

Hargrove v. Frommeyer & Co.

229 Pa. Super. 298 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1974

As related above, the record clearly shows that Appellant did not meet the burden of showing superseding causes as a matter of law. … Our position remains the same, as we feel such employees are clearly owed the duty and afforded the protections established by that section of the Restatement (Second). See also Woolen v.

Mitchell v. Moore

729 A.2d 1200 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1999

Plaintiff was not required to aver that others had been granted leaves when they requested time to serve a prison sentence. ¶ 17 Appellant, in his amended complaint, has clearly stated the facts necessary to establish a prima … CONCLUSION: ¶ 28 Appellant's amended complaint is legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge.

Com. v. Richardson, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2025

Here, the PCRA court addressed Richardson’s claim of countywide judicial corruption as follows: [Richardson’s] claims of illegal conduct by the Courts during his criminal case are clearly false. … Here, Richardson bases his claim on an alleged immunity deal the victim had with the Commonwealth in an earlier prosecution in an unrelated case in Cumberland County.

Com. v. Lee, N.

260 A.3d 208 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2021

§ 6105, Persons Not to Possess, and concluded that its terms mandated increased penalties only where the defendant’s record established the presence of a prescribed prior “conviction.” … predicate offenses: Upon review, we conclude that section 9714 is written in terms with precise legal meanings that clearly restrict application of the measure to criminal defendants found guilty