Case law

Com. v. Beatty, B.

2020 Pa. Super. 21 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2020

Tuff testified that he had no agreement with the Commonwealth as to his pending charges in exchange for his testimony, and had not been offered immunity by the Commonwealth for his testimony. … [t]hat [Appellant] was clearly engaging in a life of dealing drugs and profiting from that drug trade. This was not an isolated incident.

Dougherty v. Heller

2014 Pa. Super. 170 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2014

Clearly, Appellant’s assertion implicates fundamental questions related to the nature of pretrial discovery. … Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir.1994) (“Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.

Markowitz v. Urban

77 Pa. Super. 540 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 1921

Siegel, the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the defendants to cross-examine him as to the details and all the circumstances within his knowledge which qualified that statement: Jackson v. … exchange this land up on the western end of the Fowler farm for the interest that the Urbans had bought in the Bean farm, and, if so, whether or not you are satisfied from the testimony that the limits of the land were clearly

Commonwealth v. McLaughlin

231 Pa. Super. 129 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1974

Supreme Court of this Commonwealth, there need be no custodial interrogation so long as the interrogation takes place adjunctive to a criminal investigation of which the accused is the focus. 9 *137 Since the investigation clearly … We reject the contention that tax investigations are immune from the Miranda *138 requirements for warnings to be given a person in custody.” 391 U.S. at 4 Therefore, even though an investigation begins with only the potential

FedEx Corporate Services v. Costume Gallery

320 A.3d 129 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2024

These exhibits included a bill of sale, a leasing agreement, and financial statements establishing their ownership interests in the property. … Whether Appellants had standing to seek relief exclusively under Rule 3202 was clearly a subsidiary question to the one that Appellants directly posed in this case.

In re N.B.

2003 Pa. Super. 48 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2003

[The lower court] was informed on March 23, 2001 that mother and father lived at the same residence and the goal established for the family was to reunify the child with both parents. … Where, as here, appellants’ interests are not clearly any more 1 essential than the interests in liberty that defendants in criminal trials hold, we see no reason to refrain from applying the; Cohen criteria to the case at

Swarner v. Mutual Benefit Group

2013 Pa. Super. 198 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2013

We are limited to determining whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Id. … Where, as here, a defense is based on an exception or exclusion in a policy, the burden is on the insurer to establish its application. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v.

In the Interest of C.B.

2004 Pa. Super. 402 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2004

We wholeheartedly concur with the trial court that in light of Father’s clearly established moral depravity, he poses a threat to A.L. Hence, we affirm the suspension of visitation between him and A.L. … Clearly, the result in Davis was to enable the local child welfare agency to intervene and to ensure that the child was safe.

Seeley, T. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp.

206 A.3d 1129 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2019

When the non-resident is a corporation, like Defendants, general personal jurisdiction is established when the corporation: (1) is incorporated under or qualified as a foreign corporation under the laws of this Commonwealth … Preliminary Objections Hearing, 2/10/14, at 13. 9Defendants have clearly not consented to being sued in Pennsylvania, as is evident from their filing of preliminary objections on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction

Gillingham v. Consol Energy, Inc.

51 A.3d 841 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2012

The statutory-employer immunity defense, which Consol seeks to invoke herein, arises pursuant to 77 P.S. § 52 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. … Gillingham and Technical Solutions as well as the one between Technical Solutions and Consol clearly designated Mr. Gilling-ham as an independent contractor of Con-sol.

Commonwealth v. Charlton

2006 Pa. Super. 149 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2006

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Based on the foregoing, the evidence is clearly and convincingly sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that appellant is a SVP.

DiLucente Corp. v. Pennsylvania Roofing Co.

440 Pa. Super. 450 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1995

By letter dated March 21, 1994, DiLucente raised a qualified objection to arbitration of the underlying dispute. … We conclude that the trial court was correct in denying DiLucente’s request for injunctive relief since it was not clearly entitled to enjoin arbitration. 3 Order affirmed. 1 .

Commonwealth v. Burton

121 A.3d 1063 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2015

In order to qualify, a petitioner must establish that (1) he did not know the facts upon which he based his petition, and (2) he could not have learned those facts earlier with the exercise of due diligence. … Clearly, that is distinct . We reject the learned Dissent’s suggestion that we have adopted a "status-based approach” to assessing due diligence.

Commonwealth v. O'Bidos

849 A.2d 243 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2004

To establish ineffectiveness for failure to call a witness, Appellant must establish that: (1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available; (3) counsel was informed of the existence of the witness or counsel should … Even if we were to assume that our decision was “clearly erroneous,” we find no “manifest injustice.”

Commonwealth v. Miller

279 Pa. Super. 254 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1980

assailant in court neither resulted from nor was biased by the unlawful police *263 conduct committed long after she had developed that capacity.19 C Insofar as respondent challenges his own presence at trial, he cannot claim immunity … Clearly the 180 day period pursuant to Rule 1100 Pa.R.Crim.P., could not have and did not commence. The rule governs a court case in which a “written complaint is *264 filed against the defendant.”

Tombs Estate

155 Pa. Super. 605 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1944

effected only when there is (1) a positive direction to sell; or (2) an absolute necessity to sell in order to execute the dispository scheme; or (3) .such a blending of the real and personal estate of the testator as to show clearly … A qualified restriction upon the right to partition is not the creation of a condition repugnant to the nature of a fee simple estate and hence void as in violation of the rule against restraints on alienation, (Pattin v.

Kiker v. Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan

742 A.2d 1082 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1999

not only detrimentally affected the ACP’s subrogation rights but also circumvented the legislature’s policy that accidents involving an unidentified vehicle be reported in detail to the police in order for the vehicle to qualify … motor vehicle owned by the Federal Government or any of its agencies, departments or authorities. (5) Is not the operator or occupant of a motor vehicle owned by a self-insurer or by an individual or entity who or which is immune

Commonwealth v. Shields

50 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1912

We need not discuss the sufficiency of these acts standing alone to establish the embezzlement charges. They do not stand alone. … all the evidence, whether this essential had been established.

L.M.P. v. E.C.

2016 Pa. Super. 232 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2016

Rather, we require a showing of manifest unreasonableness, *880 partiality, prejudice, bias, ill-will, or such lack of support in the law or record for the award to be clearly erroneous.” Id. … Here, we recognize that the GAL was imminently [sic] qualified to serve as the child’s Guardian Ad Litem in this very difficult case.

Alco Parking Corp. v. Public Parking Auth. of Pittsburgh

706 A.2d 343 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1998

The evidence establishes conclusively that the alleged 1985 oral agreements were omitted deliberately from the contracts in order to qualify for tax exempt bond funding to improve the garages. … The evidence conclusively establishes that appellants knew the garages they managed would not qualify for tax-exempt bond funding if management contracts exceeding a five-year term were in existence.