Case law

Commonwealth v. Coleman

2006 Pa. Super. 214 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2006

[Appellant] qualified for this program due to her multiple sclerosis. … Because [Appellant] was clearly capable of retaining counsel, but simply refused to do so, she forfeited her right to counsel.

Kafando v. Erie Ceramic Arts Co.

2000 Pa. Super. 377 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2000

Id. ¶ 10 In the present case, the gains-haring plan does not qualify as earnings of an employee because the funds in the plan are not determined based upon an employee’s time or task, piece or commission. … The terms of the contract in Hartman clearly distinguish that case from the instant one. ¶ 15 Kafando also cites Bowers v. NETI Technologies, Inc., 690 F.Supp. 349 (E.D.Pa.1988). This reliance is likewise misplaced.

Commonwealth v. Yereb

705 A.2d 439 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1997

Adopting Appellant’s position would create the odd situation where the legislature has established an offense without a penalty. The legislature could not have intended such a result. … This statement clearly indicates that he believed the testimony of Officer Rococi.

Malone v. Stonerook

2004 Pa. Super. 48 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2004

The test on preliminary objections is whether it is clear and free from doubt from all of the facts pleaded that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish his right to relief. … Packer, 568 Pa. 481, 491, 798 A.2d 192, 198 (2002) (providing that, “courts should generally apply qualifying words or phrases to the words immediately preceding them”); 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903.

Commonwealth v. Kemble

413 Pa. Super. 521 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1992

The aforementioned evidence could have clearly impacted upon the instant jury’s determination of whether appellant’s blood alcohol content was .10% or greater at the time she was operating her automobile since the validity … "To prove a § 3731(a)(1) violation, the prosecution must establish that the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired during vehicle operation.

Commonwealth v. Snell

2002 Pa. Super. 354 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2002

For purposes of breath testing, a qualified person means a person who has fulfilled the training requirement in the use of the equipment in a training program approved by the Departments of Health and Transportation. … This issue is wholly without merit, as the trial court clearly granted production of the manuals.

Weightman's Estate

126 Pa. Super. 221 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1936

Opinion by Cunningham, J., In January, 1935, William Walker Weightman, then a mental patient in Norristown State Hospital, to which he had been summarily committed in June, 1934, upon the certificate of two qualified physicians … Whether they should or should not be paid out of this incompetent’s estate cannot be judicially determined until all the circumstances under which the services were rendered have been established in due course of law.

Baker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

309 Pa. Super. 81 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1982

Commonwealth, 490 Pa. 156 , 415 A.2d 80 (1980) (case abrogating doctrine of sovereign immunity to be applied retroactively); Schreiber v. … (Emphasis supplied.) 7 With respect to appellant’s reliance on Chevron Oil, we do not agree with appellant that Heffner established a new principle of law.

Commonwealth v. Vergilio

2014 Pa. Super. 254 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2014

It would render an offender who utters a threatening message in one state immune from suit in any and all other states to which he intentionally sends his illegal communication. … The verb communicate is defined as “[t]o express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood.” The American Heritage Dictionary 299 (2d ed. 1985).

Commonwealth v. Arcelay

190 A.3d 609 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2018

If the language of the statute clearly and unambiguously sets forth the legislative intent, it is the duty of the court to apply that intent and not look beyond the statutory language to ascertain its … See id.; see generally Title 51, Part II, Pennsylvania National Guard, Pennsylvania Guard and Militia (setting forth, among other items, the organization, pay, and rights and immunities—including 51 Pa.C.S.

Com. v. Shaw, P.

2019 Pa. Super. 245 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2019

The record in the trial court established that [Appellant] held Ms. Peck down and tried to kiss her and then fled the scene. [Appellant] and Ms. … The PCRA court addressed Appellant’s claim as follows: The instant claim is clearly distinguishable from Cruz. In Cruz, the appellant presented evidence that he was “lobotomized.”

Commonwealth v. Boyles

407 Pa. Super. 343 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1991

The note sent to the judge did not clearly indicate that the jurors were “hopelessly deadlocked.” The jury had been deliberating for less than three hours. … Evidence of the defendant’s good character is established by testimony of witnesses as to the reputation of the defendant in the general community. Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Dillon

2004 Pa. Super. 457 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2004

In that homicide trial, our Supreme Court permitted the introduction in the Commonwealth’s casein-chief of prior bad acts, even though the evidence was clearly prejudicial to the accused: [t]he [trial] court is not ... required … It is also directly contrary to our express dictates in Barger : [0]ur failure to allow the admission of such prior abusive and intimidating acts would, in essence, grant immunity to criminals who, like [the a]ppellant here

Commonwealth v. Gross

307 Pa. Super. 353 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1982

Other testimony established that appellant had taken out a fire insurance policy on the contents of the trailer for the first time on March 23, 1979. … The record in this case clearly establishes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the expert to state his opinion. See: Commonwealth v.

Reimer v. Delisio

296 Pa. Super. 205 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 1982

Sheppard, 464 Pa. 387, 397 , 346 A.2d 897 (1975), coupled with the discussion hereinabove set forth, clearly disposes of this constitutional challenge. … There is no implication that such *219 films must be taken by an adverse party to establish their admissibility.

Romeo v. Manuel

703 A.2d 530 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1997

Clearly, decedent’s state of mind and explanation for course of conduct were at issue in the Cluver case to disprove contributory negligence. … In order to qualify as a statement to explain the course of conduct, the statement must be “evidence as to the reason action is taken.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Ross, W.

2025 Pa. Super. 27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2025

-5- J-S27035-24 Our standard of review for an order denying a motion to suppress is well- established. … clearly sought confidential, spiritual guidance in that meeting.

Ruff, T. v. York Hospital

257 A.3d 43 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2021

Clearly, in this case the jury heard not only from the [Appellant’s] expert but also from the defense. … Similarly, an expert not qualified as a legal expert cannot opine whether one’s conduct complies with the law. Brown v. Commonwealth, [843 A.2d 429, 433 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)].

Jones v. Wilt

2005 Pa. Super. 97 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2005

Devito, 564 Pa. 267 , 767 A.2d 1047 1048 n. 1 (2001). ¶ 6 “Pennsylvania law provides that summary judgment may be granted only in those cases in which the record clearly shows that no genuine issues of material fact exist … Upright, LLM, CPA, which states that Appellee was negligent in not advising Decedent of the utilization of a Qualified Terminable Interest Property Trust (QTIP Trust). R. 169a.

Amrhein v. Amrhein

2006 Pa. Super. 151 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2006

Despite its representation to the contrary, the trial court clearly discredited that averment. … Section VI(I)(1), Waiver of Court Costs in Pro Bono and Reduced Fee Divorce or Custody Actions, notes that any person who qualifies pursuant to the NLSA income and asset eligibility guidelines, and who is being referred to