Case law

Freedman v. Philadelphia Tax Review Board

212 Pa. Super. 442 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1968

As such, its activities were clearly “business” within the meaning of the ordinance. Cf. Taw Review Board v. Brine Corporation, 414 Pa. 488 , 200 A. 2d 883 (1964); Kungsgaten, Inc. v. … The City, in Shapiro sought to treat the partnership as an entity separate and distinct from its partners, thereby establishing for it a *449 situs or residence within the City for tax purposes.

In Re: B. Fiedler, Appeal of: E. Fiedler

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2015

All of Decedent’s assets were contained in an Ameriprise account (“Ameriprise Account”), which was established prior to 2006, with an original principal balance of $709,953.00. … We do not agree that the record conclusively established Latisha’s lawful right to draw checks on the account.

Hassel, R. v. Franzi, J.

207 A.3d 939 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2019

Frankil had not been qualified during vior dire to testify as an expert regarding causation at trial. N.T., 12/6/17 p.m., at 90-91. … Nevertheless, Appellant herein utterly has failed to establish that any error with regard to these evidentiary rulings resulted in prejudice to him which would warrant a new trial.

Commonwealth v. Ventura

2009 Pa. Super. 96 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2009

30 A court may allow “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge beyond that possessed by a layperson [if it] will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified … In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.

Matranga, M. v. U-Haul Co. of PA

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2018

Whether U -Haul should be denied immunity on the basis of the alleged co -employee status of Marc Matranga and Jose Molina, where the evidence of record clearly demonstrates that Mr. … In McDonald, our Supreme Court established the test for determining whether a party qualifies as a statutory employer under the Act.2 According to McDonald, a party must establish the following elements to qualify as a

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank

74 A.3d 1063 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2013

Because this is a Qualified Retirement Account, [the Bank] believes both the principal and the earnings on that principal represent a return of “tax-deferred” dollars to you, the investor. … To that end, each prong of the collateral order doctrine must be clearly present before an order may be considered collateral. Melvin v.

Commonwealth v. Chong Xiong

428 Pa. Super. 136 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 1993

Testimony offered at trial, established that the family lived in a four room house and, in accordance with Laotian custom, slept together in one room. … Applying the definitions of diagnosis and opinion set forth in Green , to the case sub judice, the notation clearly was not a conclusory statement based upon a review of symptoms. It was a physical fact.

Bussier v. Weekey

11 Pa. Super. 463 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1899

It must be confined to the matters averred in the bill, negativing, qualifying or explaining them, and not going beyond and setting up distinct matters in avoidance or defense. … The case exhibits a violation by all the defendants of the plaintiff’s right as to part of the land involved, through a trespass, an ouster, and a nuisance, with a like violation of her right as to the residue clearly impending

Com. v. Wenzel, R.

248 A.3d 540 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2021

of Evidence provide: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly … This issue was raised before the trial court immediately after the trial court refused to qualify Dr. Burkett as an expert. Id. at 189.

Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

201 Pa. Super. 196 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1963

The object of these proceedings was not to establish a practical monopoly on behalf of the industry sponsored carriers. … established to exist industry-wide.

In Re DA

801 A.2d 614 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2002

Clearly, nothing about either Dr. Adebimpe's or Dr. … The present record, however, does not clearly and convincingly establish that proper parental care or control was not immediately available.

Penn Psychiatric Center v. United States Liability

257 A.3d 1241 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2021

This rule, however, does not limit a qualifying phrase to the last item or make the document ambiguous, even where there is no comma before the qualifying phrase, where it is clear from the document as a whole that the … phrase in question was intended to apply to all of the items that are listed before the qualifying phrase.

Musika, J. v. Gopez, J.

2026 Pa. Super. 132 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2026

The requirement of a physical injury has therefore clearly been established. … Cote is not qualified to testify as to the standard of care applicable to Dr. Gopez under Section 512(c)(2).

McIlmail, D. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia

189 A.3d 1100 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2018

Clearly, this issue affects individuals other than the litigants because the trial court ruling will affect the manner in which the work- product doctrine applies in similar situations. … Consequently, the Archdiocese must establish that the work-product doctrine was properly invoked with respect to the notes and summaries written by the investigator, not the attorney.

Cook, N. v. Philadelphia Federal Credit Union

2026 Pa. Super. 39 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2026

By now it has become well[-]established that settlement of disputes by arbitration [is] no longer deemed contrary to public policy. … Whether or not Appellees’ loans qualify as “accounts” as defined in the Membership Agreement, as argued by Appellees, is of no moment.

Myers v. Kipp

20 Pa. Super. 311 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1902

In strictness, this is not an allegation of a parol agreement contradicting or qualifying a written contract. … It is needless to cite authority for principles so long established in our jurisprudence.

Com. v. Bonnett, P.

239 A.3d 1096 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2020

I think, clearly, you’re arguing a mistake in application of the science, which is clearly cross examination at trial. ____________________________________________ http:// www .nfpa. org /news-and-research/publications … It is well-established that any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived for appellate review. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998).

Commonwealth v. Blasioli

454 Pa. Super. 207 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 1996

Mueller was qualified as an expert, and that the jury could consider his opinions as well as his facts. … Lawrence Mueller was being qualified as an expert witness, I made what might be characterized as a gratuitous comment. I qualified Dr. Mueller as an expert, and then I spoke the word barely.

Carr, P. v. First Commonwealth Bank

2025 Pa. Super. 74 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2025

“This is in keeping with the 30-day time period for appeals established by the legislature in other types of cases.” Id. … They claim to have “demonstrated the existence of extraordinary circumstances which clearly justify the trial court’s granting of nunc pro tunc relief.” Carrs’ Reply/Cross-Appellee Brief at 16.

Commonwealth v. Tukhi

2016 Pa. Super. 231 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2016

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. … However, the claim is not so clearly devoid of merit so as to warrant classifying this appeal as frivolous.