Case law

Commonwealth v. Ross

2016 Pa. Super. 106 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2016

This does not end our inquiry, however, as Appellant asserts that he qualifies for a timeliness exception under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii), based on a newly-recognized constitutional right that should be applied retroactively … By employing the past tense in writing this provision, the legislature clearly intended that the right was already recognized at the time the petition was filed. Commonwealth v.

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.

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

Commonwealth v. Santiago

2017 Pa. Super. 116 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2017

C Insofar as respondent challenges his own presence at trial, he cannot claim immunity from prosecution simply because his appearance in court was precipitated by an unlawful arrest. … Moreover, the Howard Court clearly applied a taint analysis to the eyewitness identifications at issue in that case.

In re M.G.

2004 Pa. Super. 251 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2004

preserve and reunify the family need not be made or continue to be made, determine whether the county agency has filed or sought to join a petition to terminate parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified … clearly warrants termination.

Appeals of Meenan

11 Pa. Super. 579 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1899

L. 126; 3 Stat. at Large, chap. 244, provided, inter alia, that no persons “ other than such who are qualified so to do by the above recited law ” (act of 1710) “ shall presume .... to retail or sell to any person or persons … A monopoly, in effect,it certainly was, but whether the regulation was adopted with that end in view exclusively, or for the primary purpose of prohibiting the establishment and maintenance of mere drinking places is another

In Re Jm

42 A.3d 348 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2012

The president judge of the court of common pleas shall establish a restitution fund for the deposit of all contributions to the restitution fund which are received or collected. … With regard to whether J.M. is a "child" as defined in the Juvenile Act, § 6302 provides: The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings

Commonwealth v. Bozzi

169 Pa. Super. 206 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1951

Of course, if they establish it by a preponderance of evidence, then there would be a burden on the Commonwealth to rebut it, but I shall discuss a little further the evidence as to alibi. … The evidence of good reputation in this case clearly was not impressive and under the circumstances the trial judge was justified in this additional comment: “But you have a right to consider the people who came in here and

Shinal, M. v. Toms, S.

2015 Pa. Super. 178 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2015

Trial courts are given latitude and discretion in phrasing instructions and are free to use their own expressions so long as the law is clearly and accurately presented to the jury. Id. … Appellants argue that Foflygen and Bulman, pre-date MCARE, which they do, and that they are clearly distinguishable, which they are not. (See Appellants’ Brief, at 45).

Sew Clean Drycleaners & Launders, Inc. v. Dress for Success Cleaners, Inc.

903 A.2d 1254 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2006

Given the circumstances of this case, we find that this prong is established as well. … Clearly, Sew Clean’s claims against Giant Eagle relate to the issues that are subject to arbitration, and thus, the trial court should have issued a stay pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 7304(d).

Barber, J. v. Stanko, B.

2021 Pa. Super. 97 · 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).

Kruis v. McKenna

2001 Pa. Super. 366 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2001

We are loathe to reverse the exercise of the court’s equitable powers unless an abuse of discretion is clearly evident. … The “Non-Jury Status/Trial Scheduling Conference” qualifies as a “pre-trial” conference scheduled under Rule 212.3.

Murray v. McCann

442 Pa. Super. 30 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 1995

Appellant also alleged that the court misconstrued section 75 Pa.C.S. § 1705 when it stated that a soft tissue injury never could qualify as a serious impairment of bodily functions. … This clearly is a request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and we treat this claim as such, even though it is framed as one involving a weight of evidence claim. 3 .

Layton-Herron, M. v. Litke, K.

2026 Pa. Super. 15 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2026

She framed her objections as follows: “I believe our bodies are made by God to have, you know, natural and instinctual immunity. … While Mother arguably raised a general objection on the basis of her religion, she clearly failed to raise a specific claim on constitutional grounds either before or during the custody trial.

State Real Estate Commission v. Tice

200 Pa. Super. 553 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1963

A meeting was arranged between the purchasers and an officer of Phillipsbdrg Trust Company for the purpose' of preparing an application to FHA to qualify the Barfcrons as eligible insured mortgagors. … “A mortgagor must establish that after the mortgage offered for insurance has been recorded, the mortgaged property will be free and clear of all liens other than such mortgage and that there will not be outstanding any other

Youngstown Electric Light Co. v. Butler County Poor District

21 Pa. Super. 95 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1902

In the first place, the result would be to substitute another contract for that approved by the court, which, assuming this to be a “ county building,” would be violative of the provisions of the act of 1895, as is clearly … , the contract recites that the plans and specifications prepared by the architects and approved by the commissioners and the court were attached to and made part thereof, and there is nothing in the bill to contradict, qualify

Commonwealth v. Young

16 Pa. Super. 317 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1901

It has been established by the verdict of the jury that the appellant made a false count and an untrue return of that election ; and, as a consequence, the judge and inspectors who passed upon the qualifications of those … Every qualified voter at an election authorized by law is entitled to give one vote for every officer to be elected.

Commonwealth v. Petroll

696 A.2d 817 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1997

I have *838 found nothing in the record that establishes probable cause to believe that the truck contained evidence of a crime. … These subsections clearly give police the right to “inspect” certain documents.

MIN. & MISSION. BEN. BD. v. Goldsworthy

253 Pa. Super. 321 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1978

There can be no doubt that an acceleration clause confers a right upon the mortgagee which, by constitutional provision, is immune to impairment by legislative action. [6] It becomes equally clear that Act No. 6 limits this … Clearly, appellant could cure a default resulting from nonpayment of principal and interest.

Lamara, to Use v. Adam

164 Pa. Super. 268 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1948

The evidence, considered as it must be' most favorably to Adam, and giving him the benefit of all inferences and deductions reasonably to be made therefrom, does not so clearly establish contributory negligence that a court … It was there held that the evidence amply supported the finding by the jury that defendant’s failure to. observe -traffic and reliance solely upon a favorable-, signal by a traffic officer clearly established negligence.