Case law

Welsh, P. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp

2017 Pa. Super. 12 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2017

The requirements of an affidavit are clearly stated in the Rules of Civil Procedure and those requirements do not contain an exemption for any class of persons or jobs that have their own oaths. … Our Court has consistently adhered to the Rogers standard, stating that in only the most frivolous cases may the courts deny a FELA plaintiff his or her qualified right to a jury trial.

Wendt & Sons v. New Hedstrom Corp.

2004 Pa. Super. 355 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2004

definitional section of the Mechanics’ Lien Law provides, in relevant part: The following words, terms and phrases when used in this act shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly … the final piece of the puzzle, concomitant with the incidental improvements necessary to allow for the unit to operate, which created a distinct use for the plant and effected a material change in the interior thereof to qualify

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.

West, S. v. Abington Memorial Hospital

2025 Pa. Super. 188 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2025

No inference from words of general import can establish such indemnification.” Ruzzi, 588 A.2d at 4, quoted in Sunoco (R&M), LLC v. Pa. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. … -4- J-A08039-24 sign a contract with an integration clause, the fraud is immunized. Such a result is untenable.

Pledger, P. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2018

This is clearly not “substantially the same” knowledge that the risk of gynecomastia was 23 times what Dr. Mathisen reasonably believed it to be. … Solomon about the fact he was not an endocrinologist qualified to diagnose gynecomastia, Janssen objected to Dr. Solomon being qualified as an expert in this case because he is not an endocrinologist.

In Re: Estate of: Kittler, S.

303 A.3d 463 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2023

While establishing an account, DocVerify collects an electronic signature from the signer. … Clearly, Pennsylvania’s definition of a valid will has contemplated the technology available to testators and their counsel.

Longenberger v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

121 Pa. Super. 225 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1935

The court, in that case, said nothing about public policy; the last paragraph of the opinion, which was inserted after the decision on the main point, referred to fraud on the insurers, and cannot be applied to a clearly … Co., supra, which it qualified.

Leidy v. Deseret Enterprises, Inc.

252 Pa. Super. 162 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1977

Here the contract clearly concerned health and safety. … The public has an interest in assuring that those claiming to be qualified to follow a doctor's orders are in fact so qualified, and accept responsibility for their actions.

Pittsburg's Petition

32 Pa. Super. 210 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1906

, is clearly shown by the title to the act itself, as above quoted. … There is no qualifying language of any kind excluding from the class, any contiguous cities. There is nothing in the act to localize it by geographical description, and it applies to all citiés in the commonwealth.

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.

State Trading Corp. v. Jordan

146 Pa. Super. 166 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1941

On tbe other band, defendant insists that this notation qualifies tbe trade acceptance and destroys its negotiability. … If tbe notation does not affect its negotiability, tbe statement of claim clearly sets forth a prima facie case and is not lacking in particulars.

Derose, Admrx v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

132 Pa. Super. 212 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 1938

It is enough if it tends to establish it. … Cooper, on the stand, was only to establish the fact of death from an accident.

Jones, C. v. McNaughton Company, PC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2015

Did that clearly tell them that? A. I do not recall that telling them that either. … It is also well established that a witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience.

Flender Corp. v. Tippins International, Inc.

2003 Pa. Super. 300 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2003

contract.— Conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract is sufficient to establish a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract. … By operation of the rule we adopt today, those provisions are both, quite clearly, “knocked out.” Neither became a part of the parties’ contract.

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Brooks, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2017

establish that Appellee acted in accordance with Regulation X and in good faith in attempting to address Appellant’s loss mitigation application. … Roth and Berneike are distinguishable from this case as those cases dealt with the requirements for triggering a servicer’s obligation to respond to a qualified written request (QWR) under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures

Panea v. Isdaner

2001 Pa. Super. 108 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2001

Here, PIC was declared insolvent and ordered into liquidation on January 21, 1998, clearly after the effective date of the current version of the Act. … However, through the Act's application by our Court today, such immunity has been achieved.

Petika v. Transcontinental Insurance Co.

2004 Pa. Super. 275 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2004

. ¶ 5 This appeal is subject to the following principles: Our standard of review in a declaratory judgment action is limited to determining whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law … Utica, supra at 336 , 473 A.2d at 1009 . ¶ 8 Instantly, the trial court explained: Matthew Petika, in order to qualify for [UIM] benefits under the Transcontinental policy must demonstrate that he is an insured.

Commonwealth v. Konias

2016 Pa. Super. 68 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2016

We agree with Appellant that merely retaining private counsel does not, in itself, establish he was not indigent. … _________________ 3 Pa.R.E. § 701 states, “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

Pink, B. v. UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2016

Appellant was clearly not “ignored” after his injury. … Thus, we concluded “it is problematic to rely on Thompson for the proposition that the acts in that case could not qualify as gross negligence.” Id.

Commonwealth v. Fiore

445 Pa. Super. 401 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1995

The two courts are clearly in conflict and this leaves *408 the Attorney General’s office ill-advised on how it should proceed in such situations. … Scarpone’s conviction of operating without a permit when the facility clearly had one. Id. at 278-29, 634 A.2d at 1112 (emphasis in original).