Case law

Austin Unemployment Compensation Case

186 Pa. Super. 359 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1958

. *360 The claimant established a base year consisting of the fourth quarter of 1955 and the first, second and third quarters of 1956; that during this base year the claimant’s total wages were $705.70, with the wages of … This clearly is a saving clause to allow claimants, who do not have sufficient qualifying wages under the two other methods, to qualify for benefits at a lower weekly rate.

In Re Grand Jury, April Term, Wayne Cty.

251 Pa. Super. 43 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1977

It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, [citations *49 omitted] and to require him to answer if “it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.” [Citations omitted.] Hoffman v. … Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s finding that appellant was in contempt and the conditions established by the court which appellant must meet to purge the contempt. *54 CERCONE, J., concurs in the result.

Commonwealth v. Aziz

1999 Pa. Super. 12 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1999

The court stated: The Pennsylvania Juvenile Act does not provide immunity to a juvenile testifying at his transfer hearing. … Despite its recognition that a juvenile’s transfer hearing testimony is not immunized, the court found that the Act did not violate due process.

Topp Copy Products Inc. v. Singletary

404 Pa. Super. 459 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1991

; and (4) the burden of establishing the immunity is upon the party seeking protection of the clause. … As our supreme court has clearly noted in Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v.

Commonwealth v. Myers

298 Pa. Super. 272 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 1982

To have held otherwise would clearly have placed an impossible burden on the Commonwealth. … This rationale is clearly applicable to the circumstances of the present case.

United States v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

184 Pa. Super. 380 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1957

It is apparent that, whatever the immunity of the Federal Government may be, such immunity does not extend to those who render services to the Government such as The Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Penn Dairies, Inc. v. … for bringing the railroad company within any implied governmental immunity.

Estate of: Fabian, S., Appeal of: Benson, L.

222 A.3d 1143 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2019

[W]e may only reverse upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. … before been qualified as an expert witness.

DeMary v. Latrobe Printing & Publishing Co.

2000 Pa. Super. 339 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2000

“However, this qualified immunity is forfeited if the publisher steps out of the scope of the privilege or abuses the ‘occasion.’ This can Ije done by exaggerated additions, or embellishments to the account.” … Paragraphs 23, 30, 31, 34, 35, 68, and 94 of the DeMarys’ complaint clearly set forth specific factual averments, which, if accepted as true, would establish that the Bulletin abused the fair report privilege.

Ducjai v. Dennis

431 Pa. Super. 366 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 1994

Further, the trial court stated in its well-reasoned opinion that: “[t]he record before us establishes unequivocally that [appellant] was an employee of the Y.M.C.A. at Camp Kresge at the time of the accident; that [appellee … In Apple , our high Court stated unequivocally that “[t]he language of the amendment ... clearly provides that a co-employe is immune from liability for his negligent act resulting in injury to his fellow employe.”

Commonwealth v. McCauley

403 Pa. Super. 262 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1991

Topa, 471 Pa. 223, 230 , 369 A.2d 1277, 1281 (1977) established the standards by which scientifically adduced evidence may be qualified for presentation at trial in this Commonwealth when it adopted the notions so vividly … Additionally, she would have been granted immunity and could not, therefore, incriminate herself.

Commonwealth v. Bernstein

357 Pa. Super. 13 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1986

In our view, the facts of this ease clearly support judicial deference to the prosecutorial discretion recognized in Shade, supra, and Eisemann, supra. … Immunity of witnesses (b) Request and issuance.

In re Mercantile License Tax of Pittsburgh Coal Co.

77 Pa. Super. 93 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1921

The decisions indicate that act did not apply to miners of coal; it reduced the exempted class created in the Act of 1841 by restricting the immunity theretofore enjoyed by a par *98 ticular member of the class, i. e., the … manner of making the assessment empowered the county treasurer to ‘require the owner or business manager (of the company subject to taxation) to appear before him in person, with the books and accounts of his mercantile establishment

Estate of: Fabian, S., Appeal of: Benson, L.

2019 Pa. Super. 334 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2019

before been qualified as an expert witness. … This was clearly a misapplication of the law.

Commonwealth v. McNeil

2002 Pa. Super. 311 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2002

(b) Waiver of sovereign immunity.— To the extent that the Commonwealth and any of its officers, officials or employees would be shielded from liability under this section by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, such immunity … Also, the Courts of Common Pleas clearly have the jurisdiction to hear murder cases. Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Barnhart

2007 Pa. Super. 293 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2007

"To establish grounds for 'reasonable suspicion’ ... the officer must articulate specific observations which, in conjunction with reasonable inferences derived from these observations, led him reasonably to conclude, in light … Also, the totality of the circumstances test does not limit our inquiry to an examination of only those facts that clearly indicate criminal conduct.

FedEx Corporate Services v. Costume Gallery

320 A.3d 129 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2024

This action is entirely distinct from a claim for exemption or immunity. Exemptions and immunity from execution are discussed separately in Pa.R.C.P. 3123 and 3123.1. … The [Third Parties’] attempt to add a third-party property claim to a rule that clearly states exemptions or immunity, which are defined in other rules, is improper and directly conflicts with the rules

Mele Construction Co. v. Crown American Corp.

421 Pa. Super. 569 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1992

from lien. 1 On its face, section 1505 is simply not limited to those categories of exemption or immunity delineated by section 1303. … This court has explained that the party asserting waiver of a mechanics’ lien “must clearly prove its existence.” Patrick McGuigan Roofing v. Kallman, 405 Pa.Super. at 588, 592 A.2d at 1369 .

Dixon, T. v. Heritage Valley Sewickley

2026 Pa. Super. 102 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2026

To that end, each prong of the collateral order doctrine must be clearly present before an order may be considered collateral. Melvin v. Doe, 836 A.2d 42, 46-47 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted). … In addition, this matter does not have anything to do with a claim of immunity from suit.” Chilutti, 349 A.3d at 834.

McGaw v. Hamilton

15 Pa. Super. 181 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1900

the council for action, therefore the occasion was not privileged; second, that the defamatory words spoken by the defendant were not pertinent to the occasion; *189 and third, that the occasion was at the most, one of qualified … , Justice Gkeen, speaking for the Supreme Court said, that, “ even in the recognized cases of absolute privilege, it is not enough that the slanderous words were uttered in a legislative hall or in a court of justice to establish

Estate of Clark

10 Pa. Super. 423 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 1899

The only effect of the legislation was to establish a distinction between individuals duly qualified under the law to become sureties and corporations so qualified. … Such sureties are entitled to equal privileges and immunities. The conclusion of the learned court below seems unassailable. Judgment affirmed.