Case law

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.

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.

Philadelphia v. Bilyeu

47 Pa. Super. 148 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1911

But on the second trial the testimony of the defendant’s witnesses upon this point was not only uncontradicted, but was corroborated by the testimony of Bertha Reaf, the only witness called by the plaintiff who was qualified … This is shown very clearly by the following question and answer: “Q.

Thomas M. Durkin & Sons, Inc. v. Nether Providence Township School Authority

314 Pa. Super. 131 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 1983

This argument is clearly without merit. That expert testimony is necessary to establish negligent practice in a profession has long been the rule in Pennsylvania. Bierstein v. Whitman, 360 Pa. 537 , 62 A.2d 843 (1949). … Durkin, were never held out to be experts qualified to testify that either of the additional defendants had breached the appropriate standard of care within the industry for construction contract design by a professional.

Brown, J. v. Gaydos, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 5, 2022

This provision “clearly provides that a co-employee is immune from liability for his negligent act resulting in injury to his fellow employee.” Ducjai v. Dennis, 656 A.2d 102, 104 (Pa. 1995). … “In order to establish immunity under the [WCA], the defendant is required to establish that her act or omission occurred while she was in the ‘same employ’ as the plaintiff, that is, in the course of her performance of

In the Matter of: S.H.D.N., a Minor

2025 Pa. Super. 163 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2025

Moreover, they were not solely part of the permanency proceedings, as they were clearly conducted, at least in part, to inform the court’s § 2511(b) analysis. … - 10 - J-A15011-25 failing to object or include it clearly in her Rule 1925(b) statement. Id. at 14- 15.

Weliver, J. v. Ortiz, I.

291 A.3d 427 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2023

Clearly, Father regarded the 2020 custody petition as distinct from his prior, resolved petitions. … the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, its August 19, 2022 custody order is null and void. ____________________________________________ 11 Under the custody agreement in effect at the time, New Jersey qualified

R.C. v. J.S.

2008 Pa. Super. 219 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2008

7 In its opinion, the trial court rejected Mother’s challenge to the hearing officer’s recommendation for two reasons: Based upon the facts elicited at the support modification hearing, it is clear that Mother does not qualify … Under the circumstances, an abrogation of the child support obligation of Father is simply unwarranted. ¶ 16 We also observe that it is well established that a child support order can be modified only upon a substantial change

Tong-Summerford, A. v. Abington Mem. Hosp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2018

It is also well established that a witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience. … This testimony sufficiently sets forth a prima facie case of corporate negligence.11 The evidence in the record clearly established there were no written policies or protocols in place in 2008 regarding the

In Re TF

847 A.2d 738 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2004

However, she testified that she did not complete the drug programs because she either did not understand them, did not qualify for them or that she was scared of the programs. … Therefore, the weight and sufficiency of the evidence clearly supported involuntary termination of [Mother]'s parental rights. T.C.O. at 7-8.

Tiburzio-Kelly v. Montgomery

452 Pa. Super. 158 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1996

Montgomery, over the objections of appellants’ counsel, was able to establish that Dr. … It should be noted that this exchange took place during *186 the second week of appellants’ case, and after appellants’ expert clearly established the point counsel was seeking to establish.

Povrzenich, L. v. Ripepi, J.

2021 Pa. Super. 46 · 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.

Southard v. Temple University Hospital

1999 Pa. Super. 95 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1999

In such clinical investigations, qualified experts conducting the investigations are required to follow procedures and abide by conditions mandated by the FDA, including informing patients who are subjects of the investigations … Clearly, unknown characteristics are risks.

Simon's Estate

20 Pa. Super. 450 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1902

But we are clearly warranted in saying that if the testimony of Mrs. Britton, A. J. Dickinson, A. J. Maloney and T. … Britton, we think is established by his own testimony.

Commonwealth v. Feese

2013 Pa. Super. 255 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2013

Exercising this constitutional authority, the General Assembly established that: The Majority and principal Minority Party Caucuses shall each establish a Legislative Management Committee which shall be composed of the Floor … In response to arguments that the court’s action would immunize the petitioner from criminal prosecution, the court disagreed, stating that “a judicial officer is not immune from criminal prosecution, and like any citizen

Pilieri v. Continental Casualty Co.

718 A.2d 1255 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 1998

In order to qualify for the futility exception and avoid the exhaustion requirement, Appellee was required to show that it was certain that her claim would have been denied if she followed the internal appeal procedure established … Clearly, the trial court used the standard of review suggested by Appellant, and, therefore, judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not warranted on this basis.

Com. v. Peralta, J.

311 A.3d 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2024

--The following shall apply: (1) An individual whose license has been suspended under section 1547(b) shall be eligible to apply for and, if otherwise qualified, be issued an ignition interlock … If the General Assembly intended that the notice provision was irrelevant to the motorist’s duty to comply, it could have clearly stated that point.

Scheer, B. v. Burke, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2015

To qualify an expert to opine on the standard of care, a plaintiff must establish a record that the expert meets the requirements of Sections 512(a) and (b). Id. … Laragh:] He didn’t qualify, according to ALLHAT’s guidelines.

Commonwealth v. Ables

404 Pa. Super. 169 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1991

He opined: In common usage, therefore, the phrase “forcible compulsion” clearly connotes more than the exercise of sheer physical force or violence.... … The record clearly supports the finding that the incident for which appellant was convicted of statutory rape occurred on June 8, 1987. N.T. July 17, 1989, at 47.

Dixon v. Andrew Tile & Manufacturing Corp.

238 Pa. Super. 275 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 1976

If we couldn’t close the transaction because of the buyer’s not qualifying then there was no agreement. “Q. All right. Let’s say there couldn’t be a good conveyance of title, what was your understanding then? “A. … This claim is without merit as the lower court’s charge, taken as a whole, clearly sets forth the relevant criteria for the jury to consider. See, e.g., Brennan v. St.