Case law

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Veltri

37 Pa. Super. 399 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1908

Wifehood is as clearly defined a legal state or condition as that of widowhood. … There were no qualifying circumstances, and from the relief department’s standpoint, the intended beneficiary, if the applicant be married, must be his wife or his wife and children.

Martachowski v. Orawitz

14 Pa. Super. 175 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1900

The allegation of the injury to the plaintiff was clearly defined. “ The plaintiff further declares that the said defendant did not have any license granted to him for said house during said year, as he well knew, and by … In the making of the contract no illegal intent had been carried into execution. “ The law does not impose, as a penalty for such intent, immunity to him who has plundered one guilty of it.

Eddyside Co. v. Seibel

142 Pa. Super. 174 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1940

This position is clearly untenable. … In any event, the witness appears to have been sufficiently qualified within the rule of Western Show Co., Inc., v. Mix, supra, to establish a reasonably safe or fair basis for the assessment of damages.

Commonwealth v. Meachum

711 A.2d 1029 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 1998

Such a physical manifestation qualifies as an explicit waiver under the definition provided by our Supreme Court. Hughes, supra. … Clearly, such affirmative, verbal statements constitute waiver under the dictates of Bussey, supra.

Johnson v. American Standard

2009 Pa. Super. 22 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2009

Id. at 575-576 . ¶ 20 Here, in contrast, Appellants have made no attempt to establish standing. Rather, they proceed directly to the merits of their claim. … In that case, plaintiff WHYY was a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation that was licensed and qualified to do business in New Jersey. WHYY had a production facility in New Jersey.

In the Int. of: S.K., Appeal of: Chester Dept. C&Y

2025 Pa. Super. 22 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2025

Legal and physical custody of S.K. was to remain with Guardian [A.M.] and a visitation schedule with Maternal Grandmother was established. … To invoke the collateral order doctrine, each of the three prongs identified in the rule’s definition must be clearly satisfied.

Bensinger v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

2014 Pa. Super. 174 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2014

The Commonwealth had not waived this sovereign immunity with respect to whistleblower claims until passage of the Whistleblower Law. … The trial court’s verdict clearly dis *685 posed of this claim. See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 4/10/13, at 7.

Leber v. Stretton

2007 Pa. Super. 172 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2007

Nevertheless, in setting forth a possible questioning scenario Appellee says would establish “the facts of the Potter County situation in which [ ] Appellee did criticize [Appellants] in his pleadings seeking the appointment … Under such circumstances, the court declared that these should be considered acts simply done by judges, for which immunity is not appropriate.

In re L.Z.

2014 Pa. Super. 85 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2014

Clearly, this determination has caused, and will cause, Mother detrimental collateral legal consequences. … However, the cases cited by Appellee are clearly distinguishable from the case subjudice.

In Re DS

979 A.2d 901 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2009

In re L.C., II, 900 A.2d at 381 . ¶ 14 In In re L.C., II, this Court clearly determined that only three classes of individuals may qualify for legal party standing in dependency proceedings: (1) the parents of the juvenile … Thus, we find no error on the part of the trial court. ¶ 26 Because the trial court's findings and conclusions concerning Grandmother's lack of standing are amply supported by our review of the record and established law,

Dickens v. Barnhart

711 A.2d 513 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1998

We hold that the sudden fog qualifies as a sudden emergency, and the court’s charge was, therefore, proper. … In fact, this Court has stated that “‘the record must clearly show prejudice’ ... before reversal is warranted.” Kenworthy v.

Trust of John S. Middleton, Appeal of: Riley, P.

313 A.3d 1079 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2024

Such four (4) year term shall be renewable in the absolute discretion of the child or grandchild for whom a trust is established. … Where the rules of law on which the court relied are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court’s decree. In re Vincent J. Fumo Irrevocable Children’s Trust ex rel.

Com. v. Fletcher, A.

307 A.3d 742 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2023

The record establishes that the affidavit in question does not contain a material misstatement of fact, let alone a knowingly false statement. … Accordingly, Appellant’s recusal claim was clearly time- barred and its denial by the trial court was warranted.

Com. v. Chowdhury, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2024

. §§ 911(b)(3)-(4), 903, 4902(a), 4117(a)(3), 5105(a)(3). 3 In her direct appeal, the Commonwealth conceded that the fraud conviction must be vacated because “Medicare does not qualify as an ‘insurer’ for purposes of the … Chowdhury concludes, without expounding, that “[c]ounsel missed this law and its immunizing effect, ineffectively.” Id. at 8.

In re D.A.

2002 Pa. Super. 184 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2002

Clearly, nothing about either Dr. Adebimpe’s or Dr. … The present record, however, does not clearly and convincingly establish that proper parental care or control was not immediately available.

Commonwealth v. Pou

201 A.3d 735 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2018

The same point applies herein. ____________________________________________ clearly would have succeeded. … Thus, a constitutionally invalid waiver of counsel would qualify as a structural error. - 14 - J-A30045-17 In Commonwealth v.

Seels v. Tenet Health System Hahnemann, LLC

2017 Pa. Super. 227 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2017

Rather, as the testimony at trial clearly revealed, even by [Appellant’s] own expert, all doctors always try to minimize surgical blood loss and can, and do, capably treat patients who refuse, for one reason … After review, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to qualify Dr. Paynter to testify as an expert. Dr.

Ehrhart v. Bear

51 Pa. Super. 39 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1912

But to permit him to testify (fourth assignment) that he quarreled and remonstrated with his wife about the attention paid her by the defendant, would have been clearly in contravention of the principle enunciated in all … Justice Gordon said: “It is certain that, before the passage of the above-named acts, neither the defendant nor his wife could have been heard to testify in his defense, and that either is qualified so to do depends upon

Riggio v. Burns

711 A.2d 497 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1998

We must now determine whether the action taken by Appellant qualifies as a report of “wrongdoing,” entitling her to the protection of the Whistleblower Law. 3 *501 “Wrongdoing” is defined as “[a] violation which is not of … Appellant contends that she clearly reported a wrongdoing under the statute because she was objecting to surgical procedures, which placed patients’ safety in jeopardy.

Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News

2000 Pa. Super. 183 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2000

They claim that the articles in question were clearly defamatory because they put a distorted defamatory sexual spin on the claims made in the underlying complaint. … However, this qualified privilege may be overcome by overly embellishing an account of a proceeding.