Case law

Bracken, T. v. Burchick Construction Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2014

Lastly, while the case law requires clear an unequivocal language to establish both a waiver of immunity provided by the Act, as well as an intent to indemnify for liability stemming from an indemnitee’s negligence, “if … Therefore, we require contracting parties who desire to clearly and unequivocally provide that (1) the employer/indemnitor waive immunity under the Act by stating that the employer/indemnitor

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

T.J.B. v. E.C.

438 Pa. Super. 529 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1995

Specifically, appellee demanded that an “open adoption” with scheduled visitations be established. Moreover, appellee informed appellants and Mr. … Although appellants’ in loco parentis status qualifies them to petition to terminate the parental rights of appellee and E.C. to M.J.C., this status does not also necessarily *542 provide them standing to seek custody of

Johnson, E. v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2018

. § 1926 (“No statute shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly.”). … Notably, in 2002 when the Johnsons executed their mortgage, they were not entitled to the protections afforded by Act 6, as their mortgage did not qualify as a “residential mortgage.”

Digital Communication v. Allen Investments

223 A.3d 278 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2019

The law does not establish a specific time period within which a petition to open a judgment must be filed to qualify as timeliness. … The proper remedy, here, is to open the judgment, as the truth of the averments contained in the record is clearly in dispute.

Hrabchak v. Delaware &. Hudson Co.

54 Pa. Super. 626 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1913

The question for decision is, whether, in view of the evidence tending to establish these facts, the defendant was entitled to binding direction in its favor. Section 8, art. V, of the Act of June 2, 1891, P. … In other words, the appellant’s contention is, that the words, “while it is in motion,” qualify the first prohibitory clause, as well as the second, and therefore the first should be read, “No person under fifteen years of

Commonwealth v. Ball

357 Pa. Super. 32 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1986

Appellant’s counsel clearly misstates the proposition of law set forth in Commonwealth v. … The essential elements of burglary were thus established. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502.

Morgan v. First Pennsylvania Bank

373 Pa. Super. 408 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 1988

Bruce over the years, could qualify as an expert witness with respect to the identity of Mrs. … the testimony of the bank manager explaining the regulations and their applicability to the transaction involved in this case. 5 If the bank closed the account and paid the balance therein to the wrong person, it would clearly

Rondinella v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

24 Pa. Super. 293 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1904

Leone’s personal knowledge of them, but also because it related to matters concerning Avhich, by reason of his professional training, he was presumably better qualified to speak than a layman. … The court was clearly right in holding that the case was for the jury and in refusing the defendant’s request for binding instructions. The questions of law are more fully discussed in the Baldi case.

Moroney v. General Motors Corp.

2004 Pa. Super. 104 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2004

The question of whether evidence is admissible is a determination that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing that the court clearly abused its discretion. … That is not the type of foundation sought to be established as set forth in Spino .

Hoffman v. Public Service Commission

99 Pa. Super. 417 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 1930

in a large • degree to the sound judgment of the commission and when that judgment has been exercised upon competent and relevant evidence the conclusion ought not be disturbed by judicial interference, unless it is made clearly … One of the experienced operators called by the protestants submitted figures which estimated a total of $.00075 profit per mile, but this was qualified as being applicable to the operation of a fleet of taxicabs several times

T.J.B. v. E.C.

652 A.2d 936 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1995

Specifically, appellee demanded that an “open adoption” with scheduled visitations be established. Moreover, appellee informed appellants and Mr. … Although appellants’ in loco parentis status qualifies them to petition to terminate the parental rights of appellee and E.C. to M.J.C., this status does not also necessarily provide them standing to seek custody of M.J.C

Commonwealth v. Spencer

432 Pa. Super. 631 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1994

Appellant argues that Cindy Wimer’s testimony was incompetent and should have been disallowed because she was not qualified to express an opinion that the robber’s gait was similar to his. … Her testimony was clearly relevant to establish the identity of the robber. See: Commonwealth v. Fromal, 392 Pa.Super. 100 , 572 A.2d 711 (1990) (voice identification testimony); Commonwealth v.

Gilbert v. Synagro Central, LLC

2014 Pa. Super. 77 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2014

The third requirement under the RTFA’s statute of repose in subsection 954(a) is that the practice in question must qualify as a “normal agricultural operation.” … Practices that do not qualify as “normal agricultural operations” are not protected under the RTFA.

Ramalingam v. Keller Williams Realty Group, Inc.

2015 Pa. Super. 172 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2015

Moreover, our standard of review is very narrow; we may only reverse upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. … This subsection shall not be construed to allow an associate broker, salesperson or qualified association to hold deposits or other escrows. 63 P.S. § 455.608e(k).

Commonwealth v. Eaddy

419 Pa. Super. 48 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1992

The Court finds that the assault of November 1, 1985, qualifies as the defendant ... attempted] to cause serious bodily injury to Arlene Briggs. … Meanwhile, the PCRA clearly was intended to redress sentences exceeding the lawful maximum.

Ungarean, T. v. CNA

286 A.3d 353 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2022

Here, subsection a. is clearly inapplicable to the facts of this case. … As we agree with the trial court that Ungarean has established a claim that he suffered a “physical loss of or damage to covered property,” we also agree with the trial court that he has established a claim under the Civil

Pratt v. Stein

298 Pa. Super. 92 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1982

clearly presented to the jury.” … Such a person need not “possess all the knowledge in his special field of activity in order to qualify.” Id.

Commonwealth ex rel. Jacobson v. Jacobson

181 Pa. Super. 369 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1956

This case however clearly reflects the propriety of our insistence that in custody cases in the Municipal Court successive hearings throughout the entire proceedings shall be before the same judge who first heard the parties … It is apparent to the Court this attempt to destroy whatever rationality and equanimity «he has been able to establish in the past years has failed. That is the end of the examination.”

In the Int. of: A.J., Appeal of: S.G.

2025 Pa. Super. 214 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2025

Did the [juvenile] court err by removing [] Children because there was not sufficient evidence that it was clearly necessary that [] Children be removed from Mother’s care? … -H., 188 A.3d 1157, 1167 (Pa. 2018) (in a termination of parental rights case, emphasizing the requirement that a “custodian or other qualified witness” authenticate purported business records).