Case law

Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh

2014 Pa. Super. 102 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 2014

In his statement to police, Shane Waters said that “[Henry] could have been avoided,” though he later attempted to qualify that statement at trial. … Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912, 917 (Pa.Super.2010) (intact glass bottle qualified as a deadly weapon). We found many examples in our cases: Commonwealth v.

H.Z. v. M.B.

204 A.3d 419 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2019

(d) Selection of experts.-- The tests shall be made by experts qualified as examiners of blood types, who shall be appointed by the court. … Clearly, that section applies to findings of paternity established via blood testing. No blood *426 testing took place in the instant matter.

Commonwealth v. Davidson

2004 Pa. Super. 396 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2004

Appellant argues that the evidence was therefore insufficient to establish that he knowingly possessed the child pornography. … He was qualified in this case as an expert in the field of physical and sexual abuse of children. N.T., 11/14/02, at 4-6. Dr.

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 .

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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

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.

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 .

Mitchell, K. v. Fornelli, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2018

Therefore, the record reflects that Judge Fornelli was entitled to judicial immunity. Furthermore, the cases relied upon by the Majority are clearly distinguishable. … -5- J-A27010-17 McNamara & Criste, 487 A.2d 814 (Pa. 1985), was not a judicial immunity case and did not involve a complaint or record that clearly established immunity from suit

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.

Cholewka, D. v. Gelso, A.

193 A.3d 1023 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2018

In the order granting Neidkowski summary judgment, the court opined: In this case, [the Cholewkas] do not qualify as trespassers, [licensees], or invitees. … Second, the Cholewkas insist the Gelsos “clearly knew of the defect, knew it was in a remote area of the property and poorly illuminated at night.” Id.

Komlo v. Balazick

169 Pa. Super. 296 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1951

However, he attempted to qualify his knowledge of the condition of the premises, and in answer to the question, “And you were very familiar with them then?” testified, “Not with the condition on my left, no.” … cites cases illustrating the non-liability of the possessor of land toward licensees for passive negligence, and cases imposing liability for active negligence, and sets forth this rule: “The distinction that has thus been established