Case law

Altoona Regional v. Schutt, C. v. University

2014 Pa. Super. 191 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2014

See Order, 8/1/2012, at 3- without impairing Sprague clearly states that a party must be joined if subsequent opinion, the trial court … Once a long as the party qualifies under one of the categories enumerated by Onorato. To be clear, current law does not respect to involuntary joinder.

Gentzler v. Atlee

443 Pa. Super. 128 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1995

The answer is clearly that it was not Dr. Gentzler who performed the surgery. … “[W]hat constitutes probable cause and whether it exists under an *136 admitted or clearly established set of facts are questions of law for the court to determine.” Dietrich Ind., Inc. v.

Wilson v. McKee and McDanel

110 Pa. Super. 544 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1933

We think it is clearly established by the evidence that Karnavas was only willing to sign the second agreement on the basis that the plaintiff and MeDanel had represented to him that there was a $35,000 first mortgage on … representations the latter had never authorized and was unwilling to- adopt; that the plaintiff never produced a purchaser who was willing to buy the building on the terms set out in agreement No. 2, except as modified or qualified

Christ Gospel Temple v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

273 Pa. Super. 302 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1979

Such principles indicate clearly that affirmance is appropriate. We first address the rights of Christ Gospel against Liberty. … is “. . . insubstantial and incapable of qualifying as an insurable interest.” 435 Pa. at 167 , 253 A.2d at 667 .

In re D.A.T.

2014 Pa. Super. 86 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2014

The entire family gets flu shots, because J.T.’s immune system is low. It is all the more important to practice a healthy lifestyle. … The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so.

Commonwealth v. Brownmiller

141 Pa. Super. 107 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1940

The fourth assignment of error complains of the court’s qualifying its answer to the defendant’s second point in the supplemental charge to the jury. … The proof offered by the Commonwealth was sufficient to establish that the defendant, instead of performing his official duties with a sound discretion to the interest of the Commonwealth, acted capriciously, arbitrarily,

Com. v. Durrett King, C.

195 A.3d 255 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2018

To overcome that presumption, the petitioner must establish: “(1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s action or failure to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice … This reading of Section 3733(c)(1) permitted the PCRA court to disregard the qualifying language in the provision stating that the defense is applicable where the police vehicle is “unmarked” and “not occupied by a police

Pepka v. Schang

704 A.2d 127 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1997

It then denied the motions for summary judgment, which were premised upon immunity, filed by Soltis, Nicholson, and National *130 Grange. … After the establishment, implementation and administration of the Constables’ Education and Training Program created under sections 29/ft (relating to program established) and 2945 (relating to program contents), no constable

Westbrook v. Robbins

416 Pa. Super. 543 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1992

According to appellees, the PACP qualifies as an insurer for purposes of this section, given that the PACP is no more than a collection of all the insurance companies who do business in Pennsylvania. … Under the operation established for the Assigned Claims Plan under the MVFRL, “claims are not assigned to an individual insurance company.

Parr, J. v. Ford Motor Company

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2014

Where qualified experts venture competing theories, each to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty based upon information and analyses regularly relied upon by their scientific communities, the jury, … Given that the Supreme Court compelled the administration of such a jury instruction under circumstances where fault was no more clearly—and perhaps less clearly—established than in this case, thereby implicitly affirming

Commonwealth v. Warlow

237 Pa. Super. 120 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1975

The theory which underlies these cases is that an owner, by reason of his status as owner, is deemed qualified to give estimates of the value of what he owns. … The record of the sentencing proceeding clearly establishes that, based upon the Commonwealth’s recommendation, appellant was sentenced as a second-degree misdemeanant.

Commonwealth v. Cameron

445 Pa. Super. 165 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 1995

Appellant’s failure to meet the first element of Duren’s conjunctive test, by so establishing such a distinctive group, defined and limited by a clearly identifiable factor such as race or sex, effectively ends his constitutional … Restrictions on qualified persons serving as jurors might apply to a greater degree on persons who suffer from an impediment to sight or from a condition such as epilepsy or advanced age but much less likely to apply because

Lynn v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

422 Pa. Super. 479 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 1993

The trial court found no merit in Appellants’ first claim since the regulations implementing Section 1797 clearly state that the new amendments were applicable to medical services rendered after April 15, 1990. … —Insurers shall contract jointly or separately with any peer review organization established for the purpose of evaluating treatment, health care services, products or accommodations provided to any injured person.

Commonwealth v. Zimmerman

143 Pa. Super. 331 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1940

It is not necessary that the accusation contain every element essential to a conviction of the crime charged to qualify as the basis of an adoptive admission. … The position taken by the court below is clearly supported by the record before us.

Commonwealth v. Love

2006 Pa. Super. 76 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2006

The comment to this rule establishes that an “affiant” can be a law enforcement officer, a police officer, or a private citizen. … Rather, in Dobbins we noted that the deputy sheriff who investigated the crime and made the arrest had obtained training under Act 120, and was, therefore, qualified to carry out his duties. 5 In any event, our Supreme Court

Commonwealth v. Washington

2013 Pa. Super. 51 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2013

Significantly, regardless of whether the informant was an eyewitness to the [crimes] for which the defendant was charged, the Commonwealth retains a qualified privilege not to disclose an informant’s identity. … Quite clearly, here the balance does not weigh in favor of revealing the identity of the confidential informant.

Bugosh v. Allen Refractories Co.

2007 Pa. Super. 215 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2007

There we quashed an appeal from entry of judgment on the basis of untimeliness, and noted that judgments entered pursuant to Rule 227.4(1)(b) were immune from reconsideration. … Again, we affirm. ¶ 30 Pa.R.C.P. 230.1 provides that entry of a nonsuit is proper where “the plaintiff has failed to establish a right to relief.”

Shamnoski v. PG Energy a Division of Southern Union Co.

765 A.2d 297 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2000

The statute clearly applies to the Appellant’s conduct as owner and operator of three dammed reservoirs that were specifically regulated by the Act. … It has already been established that Appellant did not comply with § 693.13 of the Act.

Buchanan v. Century Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

259 Pa. Super. 37 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1978

Cohen 10 established what is known as the "collateral order" doctrine. … Section 3.08, which is a release, was amended to include a qualifying provision to insure that individuals still have a cause of action against an institution for misapplication of the escrow funds.

Com. v. Handley, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2019

Appellant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence gathered during the execution of the search warrant, arguing that the supporting affidavit failed to establish probable cause. … We further observe that Appellant’s argument, quoted above, appears to assert that persons who wish to possess or use marijuana without a valid medical reason are denied equal protection as compared to persons who qualify