Case law

Commonwealth v. Shoup

423 Pa. Super. 12 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 1993

So viewed, the evidence at appellant’s trial established the following. … The Court further concluded that blood alcohol test results were qualified for admission under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

Keefer v. Keefer

1999 Pa. Super. 280 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1999

We therefore read the order as utilizing the second approach in Rule 213(a) and hold that such a consolidation ' merges all actions into one, such that each lose their separate identities. 3 ¶ 10 Having established that there … No matter how we characterize the consolidation order of March 31, 1997, the portion of the June 30, 1998, order dismissing a part of the 1995 complaint is clearly interlocutory as it continues to have three claims pending

Chamberlain v. Lilley

1 Pa. Super. 293 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1896

The facts, as above stated, are in part necessarily established by the verdict, and in part by uncontradicted evidence. … On this last proposition and the general subject of the rights of qualified owners, see 9 Bacon’s Abr. (Bouvier’s Am. ed. 1846) 459, 645, 647, 648; 26 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 744, 751, 761.

Hull v. Curtis Publishing Co.

182 Pa. Super. 86 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1956

The right of privacy has not been clearly defined. It has been variously referred to as “the right to live one’s life in seclusion, without being subjected to unwarranted and undesired publicity. … When the courts for the first time declare a certain act to be a crime or a tort, people find themselves being punished for acts previously done with immunity, and for which lawyers were unable to find prohibitive statutes

Commonwealth v. Postie

2015 Pa. Super. 34 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2015

S26037/14 a violation to be established. See id. Accordingly, we do not disturb the trial court’s suppression order. … Appellant’s 1925(b) statement does not cite any specific remark or transcript page, but qualifies only that the court’s remarks “indicat[ed he] was guilty.” Id.

Com. of Pa. v. Mangel

181 A.3d 1154 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2018

Additionally, Facebook "requires users to provide a name and e[-]mail address to establish an account. … Once he had the minor's photos, Browne repeated the pattern he had established with his first victim. Id.

Commonwealth v. Spenny

2015 Pa. Super. 237 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2015

Did the lower court commit reversible error in that its sentence was manifestly extreme and clearly unreasonable, particularly in its consecutiveness, and not individualized as required by law? [2.] … The Arizona sentencing provisions permitting sentencing above the “maximum” sentence are in contrast to established law in Pennsylvania.

Faust, M. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2017

Thus, I believe that a business entity, whose primary, if not sole, business objective is marketing, is not immune to venue under Rule 2179(a)(2). … were insufficient to establish venue.

In re L.J.

456 Pa. Super. 685 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1997

Such an objective is insufficient to qualify John Doe, Jr. as a party to proceedings involving a goal change for L.J. … We do not address the question of whether a sibling might qualify as a party under other circumstances. .

Beswick v. Maguire

2000 Pa. Super. 60 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2000

Beswick testified that he went as far as ninth grade, was not a good student, but later achieved a GED. ¶ 15 From the evidence, the jury could easily have concluded that appellant was not a skilled mechanic, and was not qualified … It has long been established that an offer to compromise a claim, not accepted, cannot be introduced into evidence. Durant v. McKelvey, 187 Pa.Super. 461 , 144 A.2d 527 (1958).

Commonwealth v. Williams

274 Pa. Super. 464 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1980

Appellant has not established that any other pre-trial statements existed or that their contents would be helpful. … The colloquy clearly establishes that the trial court based its conclusion upon a consideration of the factors enumerated in the Sentencing Code.

Yanik v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp.

150 Pa. Super. 148 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1942

I don’t feel qualified to answer that.” … We also feel that claimant has the right to the assurance that when the board declared that his disability was directly due and traceable to the amputation of the right leg below the knee, it clearly recognized just what

Foster v. Sol Greisler & Sons, Inc.

150 Pa. Super. 509 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1942

This must be so because clearly plaintiff was qualified to state his observations as to whether there was a man on the sidewalk wearing a white coat and as to what was the general practice with regard to guarding pedestrians … In the light of these established principles, the trial of this case should have been conducted in a much more liberal manner.

Weinar, M. v. Lex, W.

176 A.3d 907 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2017

In a portion of her opinion titled “Choice of Law,” Judge Shapiro summarized: “The FAA establishes a uniform federal law over contracts falling within its scope. … If, however, the court in the first action would clearly not have had jurisdiction to entertain the omitted theory or ground (or, having jurisdiction, would clearly have declined to exercise it

In re Annexation of Morrellville Borough

7 Pa. Super. 532 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1898

If that was the effect of annexation, it would require too great straining of the language of the act to hold that the court had power to re-establish the wards. … Clearly none. As well might the president of the school board appeal from the decree ordering an election of councilmen.

Melley v. Pioneer Bank, N.A.

2003 Pa. Super. 389 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2003

Was the [t]rial [c]ourt bound by the “law of the case” erroneously established in pre-trial orders of a different £j]udge? … Bolger & Picker, 512 Pa. 116, 125 , 516 A.2d 299, 304 (1986) (concluding no provision of the UFA restricts the immunity from liability to suits based on negligence or precludes its applicability to suits based on a contract

Eisen v. Independence Blue Cross

2003 Pa. Super. 438 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2003

However, at the point at which each is allegedly applied by Ap-pellees, the decision to be made is whether the proposed treatment qualifies as medically necessary. … class certification with the elements of proof necessary for Doctors to establish the merits of the case.”

Meacham v. Gardner

27 Pa. Super. 296 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1905

Miserable will be our condition if property is to depend, not on the contract of the parties, expounded by established principles of law, but on what is called the custom of particular places, so that we may have different … The plaintiff’s declaration and testimony, and several of his points,-clearly indicate that he elected to rescind the contract. In that case he was entitled to recover on a quantum meruit.

Clardy v. BARCO CONST. CO., INC.

205 Pa. Super. 218 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1965

We find that intention clearly expressed in the agreements and by the conduct of the parties in executing them. … Barco’s rights were established by the contracts subject to Bell’s election to pay either the contractor or subcontractors and materialmen. Appellant raises two additional questions which must be considered.

Brownsville Lodge No. 357 v. Great American Indemnity Co.

128 Pa. Super. 553 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1937

However, the testimony clearly establishes that the officers accounted to the lodge for the money when they placed it in the bank duly designated by the lodge as its depository. … The term, however, cannot be divorced from the qualifying phrases which follow.