Case law

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.

Schofield v. Schofield

51 Pa. Super. 564 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 1912

principles clearly point to that conclusion. … L. 597, for apart from the provisions of that statute it was clearly valid.

Commonwealth v. Shelton

239 Pa. Super. 195 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1976

While recognizing the fundamental right of an individual to a speedy trial, we do not wish to grant an accused immunization from prosecution merely because of preventable legal error. … The Court, however, was careful to declare that “[n]othing we have said should be interpreted as disapproving a presumptive rule adopted by a court in the exercise of its supervisory powers which establishes a fixed time

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.

Estate of Rozanski

356 Pa. Super. 234 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 1986

They do not qualify in any degree the absolute gift to the wife of all the testator’s interest in the land described in item 2.” Wilkinson v. Chambers, 181 Pa. 437, 442 , 37 A. 569 (1897). … This is a mere allegation not established anywhere of record.” 4 (Emphasis added.)

Engle v. Capital Fire Insurance

75 Pa. Super. 390 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1921

The court deemed him a qualified witness, and we think this conclusion was correct. … This was the exercise of discretion of the court clearly within its power: Com. v. Eisenhower, 181 Pa. 470 .

Barber, J. v. Stanko, B.

258 A.3d 438 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2021

(2) Qualified order. … [t]he payee has established that the transfer is in the best interests of the payee or his dependents.” 40 P.S. § 4003(a)(3).

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

In Re: Kocis, M. An Incapacitated Person

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2016

That they are elderly and professedly unaware of the legal consequences of their decision to handle this matter as they see fit, does not make them immune from those consequences. … Section 353.23 specifies evidence required to establish the validity of judicial proceedings.

Commonwealth v. Ross

58 Pa. Super. 412 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1914

That whenever, by existing laws, it shall be the *414 duty of any person connected with the selection or drawing of jurors to be sworn, the oath required to be taken shall be reduced to writing, subscribed by the person qualified … The rule is well established in this state: Brown v. Com., 73 Pa. 321 ; Com. v. Bartilson, 85 Pa. 482 ; Com. v. Bradney, 126 Pa. 199 ; Com. v. Carlucci, 48 Pa. Superior Ct. 72 .

Fayette County Housing Authority v. Housing & Redevelopment Insurance Exchange

2001 Pa. Super. 83 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2001

Failure to adduce this evidence establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 976 F.2d 1037 (7th Cir.1992), contends that under the exclusion, every substance in existence qualifies as a pollutant, thus making the clause ambiguous. Umbel’s Brief at 14.

Commonwealth v. Wilkinson

278 Pa. Super. 490 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1980

Thus, the only issue before us does not involve a failure to establish an essential element of homicide by vehicle, but a variance of proof in establishing the elements. … Although the complaint did not allege in so many words that her crossing was unlawful, the illegality of the crossing was clearly implied.

In Re Revocation of Revocable Trust of Fellman

412 Pa. Super. 577 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1992

Agreement; (ii) withdraw all or any part of the assets belonging to the trust estate; or (iii) alter or amend any term or provision of this Agreement, except the Grantor shall have no right or power to change the duties or immunities … In the instant case, the power to revoke the trust was reserved clearly and unconditionally.

State Board of Education v. Franklin Township School District

209 Pa. Super. 410 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1967

This clearly is not limited to plans prepared by the Department of Public Instruction. … We think this clearly establishes that the legislature contemplated that appeals would be taken from plans approved under §293.

Commonwealth v. Hickman

2002 Pa. Super. 152 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 2002

Indeed, in Hill , the United States Supreme Court confirmed that there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that the court advise a defendant about parole eligibility in order for the defendant’s plea to qualify … Because it found the defendant in Hill failed to establish prejudice under the Strickland test for ineffectiveness, however, the Supreme Court never reached the specific issue of whether counsel’s erroneous advice on parole

Corbeil v. A. & P. STORES

213 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1968

Unfortunately, her proven injury does not qualify. … Does the narrowing also show up clearly on x-ray? A. Oh, yes.” There was no rebuttal testimony.

Berry v. Berry

2006 Pa. Super. 98 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2006

Accordingly, the trial court clearly abused its discretion in finding that the partnership accrual account was income under 23 Pa.Cons.Stat. … Mandatory pension contributions do not qualify as business expenses such that they could be deducted pursuant to Rule 1910.16-2(a)(2).

Commonwealth v. Malloy

304 Pa. Super. 297 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 1982

After that hearing, District Justice Ralph Beck determined that a prima facie case had been established on all charges against both defendants. … The court declared: . . . private counsel in these cases had no right or authority to represent the Commonwealth to the exclusion of the duly qualified district attorney.

Commonwealth v. King

35 Pa. Super. 454 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1908

The defendant qualified as executor of the last will and testament of H. B. … The evidence of the commonwealth clearly established the facts necessary to his conviction, and he could not procure an acquittal by showing that he had made a full statement of his financial condition, and the character

Hazell v. Servomation Corp.

294 Pa. Super. 465 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1982

In so doing, specific provisions ordinarily will be regarded as qualifying the meaning of broad general words in relation to a particular subject. … The trial court was clearly correct.