Case law

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

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

Commonwealth v. Schoenleber Patterson

96 Pa. Super. 76 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1929

He has these comments to make on them, “The principle of law which it is contended these points announce is not clearly set forth in them. … The last question submitted by the appellant is, was there error in failing to charge as to the effect to be given to cro'ss-examination of witnesses called to establish good reputation.

Feldman, B. v. Vito Braccia Constr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2024

Whether [JNOV] is required because [VBC] is clearly entitled to immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act? 3. … Gallagher, each clearly testified that Altino was the entity retained for the tree removal job. Mr.

Takes v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

440 Pa. Super. 101 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1995

In less hazardous circumstances a failure to warn might establish no more than mere negligence. … Takes for the utility's clearly outrageous conduct.

Commonwealth v. Knighton

251 Pa. Super. 299 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1977

These statements qualify as admissions and are exceptions to the hearsay rules. Commonwealth v. Glover, 446 Pa. 492 , 286 A.2d 349 (1972). … Even a cursory review of the notes of testimony taken during the sentencing proceeding clearly establishes that both appellant and his counsel were afforded opportunities to address the court prior to the imposition of sentence

Leister v. Leister

453 Pa. Super. 576 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1996

It ignores the fact that the one-sentence provision is contained in Rules on Divorce and Annulment and applies very specifically to the contents of the form of the Divorce Decree, while nothing has been changed to qualify … The rules of civil procedure clearly establish the procedure for processing review and appeal of support actions separately initiated and not part of a joinder of related claims in a divorce proceeding.

Babb, T. v. Geisinger Clinic

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2015

Did the [t]rial [c]ourt erred [sic] in finding peer review immunity broader than HCQIA immunity and applicable to claims here[?] 4. … The panel clearly did not address the issue of immunity under the PRPA. Id. at 1230 (declining to address “the applicability of immunity under the PRPA”).

Commonwealth v. Booth

291 Pa. Super. 278 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1981

Thus while the evidence may show a propensity in the appellant for homosexual activity, the record in the instant ease clearly shows that no common plan was established. … ed. 1972) (footnote omitted); it is also hornbook law that evidence of “[ojther like sexual crimes with other persons do[es] not qualify for this purpose.”

Com. v. Hernandez, V.

2026 Pa. Super. 100 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2026

Block-Goldstein was qualified to express an expert opinion regarding victim dynamics in childhood sexual assault cases. [See id. at 50.] Ms. … John Peterson[, who] was qualified as an expert in the field of DNA profiling and analysis. [See id. at 47.] Dr.

Commonwealth v. Parente

184 Pa. Super. 125 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1957

If your judgment of what the eAÚdence establishes differs from that suggested by court or counsel you should follow your oavu judgment. … The challenged remarks of the trial judge were not specifically directed to the defense counsel because they clearly related to both counsel and the court.

MB Financial Bank v. Rao, L.

289 A.3d 181 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2020

In the instant case, the language of the Lost Note Affidavit and testimony presented by MB Financial established the following. … Clearly, if MB Financial did not own or hold these documents, it would not have been able to produce them.

Sonlin v. Abington Memorial Hospital

2000 Pa. Super. 44 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2000

As we have determined that the structured settlement proposals advanced on July 23, 1997 did not qualify under the terms of the Rule to toll the delay damages period, we need not address this issue further than to agree that … These rules were clearly considered by the trial court in denying Appellees’ request.

BRYNES v. Caldwell

439 Pa. Super. 574 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 1995

A legislative enactment enjoys a strong presumption in favor of constitutionality and will not be invalidated unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution. Id.; Parker v. … "No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed.” Pa. Const, art. 1, § 17.

Novak v. v. Somerset Hospital

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2017

Only a “professional review action” is qualified for immunity under the HCQIA. … As is clear from the statutes quoted supra, there are two classes for purposes of establishing immunity, and two different standards.

Commonwealth v. Black

2000 Pa. Super. 253 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2000

defendant’s suppression motion based on speculation that a package of contraband addressed to a third party may have been improperly opened in California where defendant, apart from having no standing to raise the issue, clearly … Neither Black nor Dior-io established a privacy interest in the Federal Express package addressed to Barbara Barsh.

MB Financial Bank v. Rao, L.

2020 Pa. Super. 221 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2020

In the instant case, the language of the Lost Note Affidavit and testimony presented by MB Financial established the following. … Clearly, if MB Financial did not own or hold these documents, it would not have been able to produce them.

Kiak v. Crown Equipment Corp.

2010 Pa. Super. 13 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2010

And if so, it would pre-empt all nonidentical state standards established in tort actions covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable federal standard, even if the federal standard merely established a minimum … The above provisions clearly demonstrate the intent of Congress to allow states a role in maintaining safe and healthful working conditions.

Turney Media Fuel, Inc. v. Toll Bros., Inc.

1999 Pa. Super. 37 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1999

Thus 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. Gemini Equipment v. … Because Shiber was hired to correct HVAC problems at many of the Toll sites, he was qualified as a fact witness to testify to what he observed regarding Turney’s HVAC installation and whether, in *840 his opinion, it conformed

Willock's Estate

58 Pa. Super. 159 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1914

But as they still stood bound for it to P. the relation of principal and surety was established as between them and B. immediately on the execution of the conveyance, though each continued liable to P. as principal debtor … We see no good reason why the mortgagor should be given any special immunity as a debtor or why his creditors should be held to a higher degree of caution than any other creditors.