Case law

Evans, R. v. Hostetter, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2023

The Court summarized Section 205 as “clearly phrased to protect all co-employe[e]s in all situations where negligent conduct of one employe[e] may cause injury to a fellow employe[e], provided only that the injury in question … As the Supreme Court held, the General Assembly used the distinct phrase “in the same employ” in Section 205, rather than importing the well-established concepts of course and scope of employment.

Commonwealth v. Waters

276 Pa. Super. 584 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1980

before reliability is established.” … Officer Davis clearly indicated that this testimony was based upon his observations of and conversations with narcotics users. Because Officer Davis did not express a medical opinion, this contention is without merit.

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.

Commonwealth v. COOPER

240 Pa. Super. 477 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1976

The unlawful act, possession and delivery of a controlled substance, was established. Appellants’ words and conduct clearly manifested an agreement to act in concert to accomplish the unlawful act. … United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967), it went on to qualify this principle with, “[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” Id.

Kelly v. Hannan

388 Pa. Super. 638 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1989

(N.T. 11/1/88 p. 19) Clearly, the record supports the appellant’s contention that the typed lease was not prepared on January 1, 1986. … In conclusion, we find that the language of the lease is not ambiguous and clearly reflects the intentions of the parties.

In Interest of Bradford

705 A.2d 443 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1997

Therefore, the standard in withdrawal of a plea, based upon failure to comply with the procedure required in a criminal case, is clearly irrational and unsupportable. … The admission did not qualify as a guilty plea but a sworn admission as to the facts of the ease in an evidentiary hearing, part admitted and part denied, which established beyond a reasonable doubt appellant’s delinquency

Gribbel v. Donoian

193 Pa. Super. 445 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1960

The record clearly shows that the defendant had suffered judgment to go by default for 11 pounds 6 shillings and the costs. … or by provision for a special type of jury in eases where the question at issue i§ really *452 one for qualified scientific or other experts to decide rather than mere laymen?

Shaffer v. Coleman

35 Pa. Super. 386 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1908

An examination, of the charge, in which the learned trial judge submitted to the jury the seriously contested questions of the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s contributory *388 negligence, will clearly show, we … Their verdict has planted in this record, as established facts, the incidents and circumstances attending the accident, as narrated by the plaintiff and her witnesses.

Werner v. Bowers

94 Pa. Super. 110 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1928

The general principles of law applicable to the disposition of actions for an alleged malicious prosecution are clearly stated by Mr. Justice Stbrrett in McClafferty v. … While the former is evidence of malice, proper to be submitted to the jury, it does not establish legal malice to be declared by the court.

Gilbert v. Korvette's, Inc.

223 Pa. Super. 359 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1972

Clearly, the law permits a finding of joint exclusive control in the case of two or more defendants. Bollin v. … Included in that category were eases in which plaintiffs were unable to either prove specific acts of negligence or could not qualify under the strict requirements of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or the exclusive control

Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co.

757 A.2d 367 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2000

Because the trial court is uniquely qualified to evaluate factual *375 matters, we will not disturb its decision absent an abuse of discretion or error of law. Burnhauser v. … Clearly, plaintiffs/appellees set forth a prima facie case pursuant to the requirements of Junge, supra, and Eckenrod, supra. ¶ 23 Mr.

Refuse Management Systems, Inc. v. Consolidated Recycling & Transfer Systems Inc.

448 Pa. Super. 402 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 1996

Novation is not specifically enumerated as an affirmative defense in Pa.R.C.P. 1030, however, the list is clearly not exclusive. … Clearly, any material facts set forth as new matter, including affirmative defenses, raise issues that are not encompassed in the previous pleading.

Commonwealth v. Trignani

185 Pa. Super. 332 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1958

Scafidi qualified her testimony with “I think it was him.” Shortly after the robbery Mrs. … positive, unqualified identification of a defendant by one witness may be sufficient for conviction even though half a dozen witnesses testify to an alibi. “ ‘On the other hand, where the witness is not in a position to clearly

Thompson v. Karastan Rug Mills

228 Pa. Super. 260 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1974

While not a single case in this Commonwealth has made exception to the necessity of establishing these four identities, 2 our cases have *266 judicially determined that the third requirement of the identity of the parties … The cause of action need not be the same nor need the parties have the balance of identity. *267 Ill The Instant Case In the instant case, the subject matter of the dispute is the qualify of the rugs sold and delivered to

Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

195 Pa. Super. 394 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1961

The record clearly supports the commission by a wealth of competent evidence, that the applicant is qualified to render the service applied for. … It is obvious that this is not a fair test, as expenses are unusually high in the establishment of a new business and the volume low.

Commonwealth v. Mullins

2006 Pa. Super. 215 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2006

As we have repeatedly emphasized in this opinion, petitioner faces a heavy burden to clearly demonstrate the unconstitutionality of Megan’s Law II. … That record has not been established. Here, Dr.

Ace American Insurance v. Underwriters at Lloyds & Companies

2007 Pa. Super. 392 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2007

Thus, we hold, in agreement with Pizzini , that in the “claims-made” context, if an insured has clearly breached the notice requirement, an insurer need not show prejudice to deny coverage. … Appellant’s Brief, p. 68. ¶24 Lloyds and Columbia respond by asserting that the April 18, 2004 order would in no way have qualified the documents in question to be admitted into evidence during the trial on the coverage issue

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. W. J. Dillner Transfer Co.

191 Pa. Super. 136 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 11, 1959

Because of the intricacies of the technical problems involved the Commission is especially qualified to speak with authority in construing the original grant. … The record will also reveal that Dillner transported 193 shipments of refractory products, which it had clearly been told, in the order of the commission of January 30, 1956, it could not transport.

Commonwealth v. Raab

2004 Pa. Super. 63 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2004

Clearly, the contents of Officer Hanusey's report were trustworthy. … This holding was qualified in that the constitutional implication may be overridden if there is "sufficiently compelling necessity." McCloud , 322 at 657.

Commonwealth v. Krotzer

51 Pa. Super. 411 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 1912

Livingston Club, 177 Pa. 224 , where Justice Dean says: ‘If this were an unlicensed sale, under the guise of club distribution, it would clearly be unlawful; the law would look through all disguises, and so pronounce it.’ … It would be easy under such ruling to evade the license laws and to establish mere drinking places, which would be subject to no regulations.