Case law

Com. v. Farmer, R.

2024 Pa. Super. 309 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2024

In so holding, the Bruen Court struck down a New York law that forbade the carrying of an unlicensed handgun and required persons seeking a public carry license to establish a special need for self-defense. … Justice Thomas relied on the Privileges and Immunities Clause. -5- J-A07001-24 that combines history with means-end scrutiny.” Id.

Commonwealth v. Andrew

178 Pa. Super. 412 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1955

To qualify for continuing its business in Maryland however it was necessary for Seaboard to restore its surplus to the amount which would meet the minimum requirements of that State. … The testimony clearly supports Judge Hagan’s finding that the defendant fraudulently appropriated assets of Seaboard and used them for his own benefit.

Crotty v. Eeading Industries, Inc.

237 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1975

The requested point is substantially *7 identical with the Restatement (Second) of Torts §382 (3) (1965)-, and independent contractors doing work on the defendant’s premises clearly qualify as business visitors whether one … Clearly the appellant was entitled to such a charge. Points two and three are correct and opposite statements of the duties owed to such visitors.

In re T.C.

2009 Pa. Super. 222 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2009

Though we are not bound by the trial court’s inferences and deductions, we may reject its conclusions only if they involve errors of law or are clearly unreasonable in light of the trial court’s sustainable findings. … The evidence establishes that the children share a significant bond with the foster parents, and that they do not share a strong bond with Father. Id. at 103-104, 123 .

Jagnow, C. v. Jagnow, S.

258 A.3d 468 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2021

-2- J-A07002-21 Following the Divorce Master’s recommendation, the parties asked Jonathan Cramer of Conrad Siegel Inc. to prepare a qualified domestic relations … Trial Court Opinion, 7/21/20, at 10-11 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).2 Wife counters as follows: Husband and Wife clearly contemplated during the course of the marriage that neither would

In re Orkney Street

9 Pa. Super. 604 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1899

Justice Green, after an exhaustive review of the earlier cases, including Extension of Hancock Street, 18 Pa. 26 , which is much relied on here, states the doctrine established by them in this way: “ As we have repeatedly … , unless it can be shown that the particular case for decision differs in essential facts, is clearly not within the reason of the rule, and, therefore, presumably, was not intended to be embraced within the rule itself.

Povrzenich, L. v. Ripepi, J.

257 A.3d 61 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2021

Voir dire on her qualifications was conducted, wherein Plaintiff established her education as a nurse, and her work experience in diverse settings, including nursing homes, operating … See Trial Court Opinion, 3/6/20, at 11 (noting that prejudice “was clearly established as the court did not instruct the jury as to future medical cost and no line item for future medical costs was on the verdict slip.

Commonwealth v. Severns

444 Pa. Super. 47 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1995

Thus the Commonwealth is not put to a burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as it must at trial. … There is nothing left to forgo contesting, once the facts are established by the trier of fact to be sufficient for a finding of guilt.

Mason, A. v. Northeast Architectural Products

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2023

Express “clearly told him what his job duties were, what his assignments would be, and . . . what he would be doing on a daily basis.” Id. at 17, citing Mason’s Deposition at 66-68. … A panel of this Court affirmed, concluding “the undisputed facts established that Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer under the WCA and was therefore immune from tort liability for Plaintiff’s injury[.]”

Com. v. Benvenisti-Zarom, L.

2020 Pa. Super. 34 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2020

in permitting the Commonwealth to present the opinion of Trooper Neely as to how the accident occurred when such testimony was tantamount to an expert opinion without Trooper Neely having been qualified … ruling regarding the admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly

Drelles v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co.

2005 Pa. Super. 249 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 5, 2005

The trial court then ruled that Drelles’ skills in the investment field qualified him as being skilled in the insurance arena as well. … Furthermore, the policy does not explain clearly, in an easy to find manner, what the difference is between “basic value” and “cash value” for the policy.

Commonwealth v. Vitale

445 Pa. Super. 43 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1995

He was a properly qualified expert; such testimony was admissible. Appellant recites sixty-one passages of testimony he believes were prejudicial. … He does not do so because the evidence clearly was sufficient to convict. We have settled the issue of using New as a basis of a jury charge in Commonwealth v.

Pierce, N. v. Empower Finance Inc.

2026 Pa. Super. 91 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2026

[Empower’s] registration process clearly fails this, as it does not even meet the minimum remedy suggested in Berman of including language such as "by clicking the . . . button, you agree to the terms and conditions … Our Supreme Court vacated that opinion and quashed the appeal upon finding that the order on review (granting a petition to compel arbitration and staying court proceedings) did not qualify as an immediately reviewable

Bullman v. Giuntoli

2000 Pa. Super. 284 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2000

Therefore he will not be found, in the absence of an express agreement which is clearly so to be construed, to assume any risk unless he has knowledge of its existence. … Barrett clearly had an appreciation of a certain amount of risk in the venture. Working on stilts certainly is more dangerous than working while standing on firm ground.

Commonwealth v. J.H.B.

2000 Pa. Super. 268 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2000

This statement of law, however, must be qualified in that informal adjustment is only available before a petition is filed or if the petition is dismissed for failure of the Commonwealth to establish the charges alleged in … This case clearly falls within the parameters of the two statutory procedures.

Commonwealth v. Sattazahn

428 Pa. Super. 413 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1993

Here, the evidence was clearly sufficient to establish that Appellant and Hammer had transported their weapons in an all terrain vehicle to and from the scene of their crime and that they had concealed the weapons on their … No *431 such qualifying language appears in that part of the jury instruction regarding § 6104 quoted infra.

Golden v. Dion & Rosenau

410 Pa. Super. 506 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1991

However, this exception is clearly not applicable here. … Likewise, Judge Doty found that no facts had been averred to establish a cause of action for wrongful use of civil proceedings or misuse of process.

Commonwealth v. Kinard

2014 Pa. Super. 41 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2014

Clearly, the introduction of the phone calls in this case, which were highly prejudicial, established that appellant was a drug dealer. … However, when balancing the probative versus the prejudicial nature of this evidence, it was clearly supportive of the other evidence in this case and was critical in establishing the absence of mistake or accident and a

In Re: Payne, J., III Appeal of: Com. of Pa

2015 Pa. Super. 272 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2015

The Commonwealth argues that Payne can never demonstrate actual innocence because of his conspiracy and/or ae-complice-to-burglary convictions, but fails to explain why or how those undérlying offenses are immune from scrutiny … Thus, clearly the issue of timeliness with respect to Section 9543.1(d)(1)(iii) had .been preserved in the PCRA court by the Commonwealth.

Olshan v. TENET HEALTH SYS. CITY AVENUE

849 A.2d 1214 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2004

"Primary health care services" is defined in 35 P.S. § 449.43 as including, but not limited to, regular checkups, immunizations, school physicals, health educations, prenatal and obstetrical care, early periodic screening … The preliminary objections, however, did not establish that the alleged medical provider liability claims against Tenet arose in Montgomery County.