Case law

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.

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.

Commonwealth v. Williams

270 Pa. Super. 27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1979

The first of appellant’s contentions is clearly without merit.. … We begin by observing that the trial court clearly and accurately presented the issue of sanity to the jury for its resolution.

Hanson v. Federal Signal Corp.

451 Pa. Super. 260 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1996

We stated: [T]he order denying class certification clearly is separable from and collateral to the cause of action for liability.... … Next, we note that class actions were established to provide a means by which the claims of many individuals could be resolved at one time, thereby eliminating the possibility of repetitious litigation and providing small

Commonwealth v. Marshall

2003 Pa. Super. 190 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2003

based on “a chemical test [ ] performed on a sample of that person’s breath, blood, or urine provided the sample is taken from the defendant within three hours of driving[,]” but without explanation that a PBT is not a qualifying … Clearly, therefore, the trial court misapplied the law in permitting the Commonwealth to introduce PBT evidence at trial. ¶ 16 We turn, then, to whether the trial court’s error was harmless.

Com. v. Benvenisti-Zarom, L.

229 A.3d 14 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2020

in permitting the Commonwealth to present the opinion of Trooper Neely as to how the accident occurred when such testimony was tantamount to an expert opinion without Trooper Neely having been qualified … ruling regarding the admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly

Commonwealth v. Levanduski

2006 Pa. Super. 204 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 2006

Additionally: The Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing the harmlessness of the error. … We agree with [Appellant] that she clearly was the focus of the investigation from an early point. However, this by itself does not create the assumption of a custodial interrogation. Mannion, supra.

Boucher v. Pennsylvania Hospital

2003 Pa. Super. 282 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2003

On two occasions, [the Bouchers’] counsel established with the court the need to examine Dr. … We emphasize that this report would not be admitted as substantive evidence: clearly, the report is hearsay, as Dr. Boyko did not testify.

Com. v. Schofield, W.

312 A.3d 921 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2024

Once it is established that the scientific evidence in question is novel, the burden then shifts to the party offering the evidence. … For these reasons, Schofield failed to satisfy Frye’s threshold step of establishing the expert’s testimony involved novel science.

Commonwealth v. Bober

59 Pa. Super. 573 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1915

The former is the measure of proof required to establish an alibi, and some other affirmative defenses, while the latter is the measure required for conviction. As pointed out in Meyers v. … The pertinency of this line of reasoning to the alibi defense was clearly brought out in the charge; the argument could not have been presented more forcibly.

Commonwealth v. Dickerson

2006 Pa. Super. 115 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2006

As noted above, to qualify for any of the exceptions found in paragraph (b)(l)(i)-(iii), one must not only satisfy the substantive requirements of the exception provision but must also file a petition invoking that exception … Clearly, the facts upon which this claim is predicated were known at the time of the colloquy.

Commonwealth v. Barton-Martin

2010 Pa. Super. 163 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2010

To establish that element, the Commonwealth introduced a lab report, and offered testimony from the custodian of records for Hanover Hospital to establish that Appellant’s BAC result constituted a business record. … The record does not clearly establish what occurred; however, there is no doubt that Appellant never completed and filed an application for admission to the ARD program. 5 .We are unconvinced that the testimony of the custodian

Bradley v. Pennsylvania Railroad

66 Pa. Super. 428 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1917

It is only because the same rate is charged to 40th street which is demanded for 52d street that the conclusion is reached that the fare to 40th street is greater than should be established. … The qualifying words clearly imply that there may be discrimination which is neither undue or unreasonable.

Motee, N. v. Bazzazan, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2025

Even assuming that Motee could establish an oral option to purchase the property, which is not borne out by the record, he failed to establish that he made improvements to the Lanark Property. … To be sure, Motee did not establish that he had had made $697,977.23 worth of improvements.

In re J.A.S.

2003 Pa. Super. 112 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2003

. § 2511(b), as termination clearly and convincingly meets the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of this child. III. … Treatment planning usually requires the involvement of a pediatrician, nutritionist, social worker, physical or occupational therapist, and a psychiatrist or other qualified mental health provider.

Klar, D. v. Dairy Farmers of America

268 A.3d 1115 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2021

We thus decline Appellant’s invitation to expand Section 4-493(1)’s civil reach beyond the perimeters established by Manning. … As the trial court ably explained, “[t]his type of collective fee does not qualify as remuneration and fails to place DFA in the position of being a licensee.

Juarbe v. City of Philadelphia

288 Pa. Super. 330 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 1981

It also required Davis to provide a sufficient number of qualified, neatly dressed, and appropriately uniformed attendants in order to render “first class” service to customers. … The evidence, while not clearly establishing liability, nevertheless does suggest possible liability if a jury were to find Exxon maintained control over the property and was negligent in its exercise of that control by allowing

Hagans v. Constitution State Service Co.

455 Pa. Super. 231 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1997

This highlighted language clearly operates to restrict the situations under which an ACP is entitled to recover benefits it has paid to an eligible assigned claims plan claimant. … This she has clearly done.

Seifing Unemployment Compensation Case

159 Pa. Super. 94 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1945

The Sun Company was not a union shop and paid only $1.01% to $1.20 per hour as against $1.58 which claimant had been receiving under the wage scale established by his union. … Although it had notice, the employer did not appear at the referee’s hearing, and the record *101 does not clearly disclose that it appeared at the hearing of the board.