Case law

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

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.

Shannon v. McNulty

718 A.2d 828 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1998

Warner’s report indicates that the hospital breached the standard of care by not arranging for a qualified surgeon to perform a cesarean section. Dr. … The Welsh case involved a suit against a hospital and thus Thompson was clearly applicable. Instantly, HealthAmerica, noting this Court’s decision not to extend corporate liability under the facts in McClellan v.

Horosko v. Mount Pleasant Township School District

135 Pa. Super. 102 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1938

By the evidence the charge of incompetency is clearly not sustained. Appellant was graduated from a teachers’ college in 1935, and received her temporary teacher’s certificate. … On the test set up by the Department of Public Instruction, and according to the testimony of this witness, appellant was qualified to teach. This evidence of a rating of 43 could not in itself establish incompetency.

In the Int. of: K.D.-Z., Appeal of: K.D.-Z.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2025

We agree that N.D.’s nonverbal statement may arguably qualify as non- hearsay on this ground because the effect the statements had on Mrs. … Thus, the juvenile court clearly abused its discretion in admitting the nonverbal statements as evidence of guilt, and this error was clearly prejudicial, notwithstanding any limited relevance the statements may have had

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.

Youngman v. CNA Insurance

401 Pa. Super. 381 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1991

“Individual” capacity, in that context, clearly meant “personal capacity.” … Where a defendant has not been prevailed against, either because of legal immunity or on the merits, § 1988 does not authorize a fee award against that defendant.” Kentucky v.

Fudula v. Keystone Wire & Iron Works, Inc.

283 Pa. Super. 502 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1981

In 1959 Keystone established an IRS-qualified profit-sharing and retirement plan for its salaried employees, and named appellant The First Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Company as trustee. … Clearly the prejudice to plaintiff were we to deny his claim far outweighs any prejudice to Keystone. Slip op. at 6-7.

Dennis v. Kravco Company

2000 Pa. Super. 319 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2000

Dennis filed the requested statement, and the trial court filed an opinion. ¶ 6 In 1915, the [Act] was established to provide a remedy for work-related injuries. Gertz v. … Clearly, Mr. Dennis was headed for the maintenance shop when he fell. ¶ 16 Based on all of the aforementioned, we conclude that Mr. Dennis was on the sidewalk by nature of his employment.

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

Mencer v. Ruch

2007 Pa. Super. 182 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2007

Mother established at that conference that Father was the beneficiary of a trust that had been created for him in New York. … The distributions that Father receives are income from an interest in a trust, clearly falling within the legal definition of income under Pennsylvania law.

Charles Warner Co. v. Exeter Machine Works

58 Pa. Super. 477 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1914

mast and gaff derricks, tower derricks, stiff legged derricks, .... revolving derricks; .... acquainted with the character of frictions, wood and .... leather; knew that Meade & Morris used leather altogether (though he qualified … This has *484 been so clearly shown in the opinion rendered by Judge Strauss upon the rule for new trial that we deem further discussion unnecessary.

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.

Ratti v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp.

2000 Pa. Super. 239 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2000

WHETHER THE TERMS OF AN ALLEGED SUBCONTRACT THAT FAILED TO EXPRESSLY WAIVE TORT IMMUNITY IS UNENFORCEABLE ON ITS FACE AGAINST THE EMPLOYER OF AN EMPLOYEE INJURED BY A THIRD PERSON’S NEGLIGENCE? 2. … No inference from words of general import can establish it. Perry v. Payne, 217 Pa. 252, 262 , 66 A. 553, 557 (1907).

Commonwealth v. Bormack

2003 Pa. Super. 228 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2003

To establish ineffectiveness, appellant must present a claim of arguable merit, assert a lack of strategy on counsel’s part and establish that, but for counsel’s act or omission, the verdict would have been different. … The Simmons court noted that the alternative basis for the charge, a witness who was not in a position to observe clearly, had been met in that case.

In the Interest of T.G.

836 A.2d 1003 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2003

However, we conclude that the Commonwealth sufficiently established this element of kidnapping as well. ¶ 12 As to what qualifies as confinement in a place of isolation, this Court has held that the concept is “not geographic … Here, the victim was playing outside and was forcibly removed without parental permission to a confined place where she clearly did not want to be.

Commonwealth v. Lloyd

701 A.2d 588 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1997

Under these circumstances, we have no difficulty concluding that the police department’s dispatch qualified as a request for aid or assistance. … At the suppression hearing, it was established that the 1992 agreement indicated that the agreement was valid for one year but that it could be renewed. The agreement was never formally renewed.

Dincer v. Dincer

446 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 1995

Although technically Belgium qualifies as the “home state” because of the length of time the children have lived there, the court must determine if other considerations trump the technical “home state” qualification. … Her actions, while unexpected and perhaps not commendable, thus were not clearly wrongful.

Taylor v. Canton Township

30 Pa. Super. 305 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1906

The fourteenth assignment, covering the refusal of the court to affirm the defendant’s twelfth point, is as follows: “ Under the statement filed by the plaintiff in this case, it is not incumbent upon the defendant to establish … This point should at least have been qualified.

Weimer, R. v. UPMC Somerset

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2020

So I do agree with [Defendants’ counsel] that with respect to the claim of false imprisonment, that the facts clearly indicated that the police officers have probable cause to detain [] Weimer and transport … But [the court] clearly find[s] that the facts do not substantiate willful misconduct or gross negligence.