Case law

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.

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.

In Re Estate of Harper

2009 Pa. Super. 104 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2009

They are clearly not payable out of the estate. … Additionally, the order in question does not qualify as a collateral order subject to immediate appeal.

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.

Commonwealth v. Patterson

257 Pa. Super. 206 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1978

The conduct of appellant in this case clearly comes under the offense of theft by deception. *214 The Supreme Court granted allocatur and reversed, Commonwealth v. … The Commonwealth argues that there was evidence that Croft was well qualified to be promoted, and that the reasons appellant gave for not promoting Croft were bad faith excuses.

Trexler, A. v. McDonald's Corp.

2015 Pa. Super. 131 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2015

Here, the Bartlett and Pace Affidavits clearly indicate Appellee was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the Pottsville McDonald’s. … Appellants however, failed to establish that they served a person at the Pottsville McDonald’s who qualified as one of those persons authorized under Rule 424 to accept service on behalf of the Appellee.

Saint Luke's Hospital of Bethlehem v. Vivian

99 A.3d 534 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2014

A defendant may not base his defense upon an opinion of counsel and at the same time claim that it is immune from pretrial disclosure to the plaintiff. … Rather, the trial court qualified its statements by stating it was “unclear to what extent, if at all” Appellant’s public statement affected the prosecution of the underlying litigation. Id. (emphasis supplied).

Murphy v. Duquesne University of the Holy Ghost

1999 Pa. Super. 339 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1999

Although his continuing employment could be forfeited for “serious misconduct,” there is no qualifying term to the forfeiture provision. … This reluctance was expressed despite the fact that there was language that was clearly more supportive of that interpretation than that presented here.

Commonwealth v. Williams

262 Pa. Super. 508 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1979

This combination was clearly sufficient to support a reasonable belief that appellant and his cohorts were the robbers of Pete’s Bar. … It was established at trial that the wallet was taken from one of the bar patrons during the robbery.

Fillmore v. Hill

445 Pa. Super. 324 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1995

The jury could have found that the defendant caused no injury at all (which would have been incredible) or they could have found that the defendant caused such as small amount of injury that it could not qualify as “substantial … Thus, this additional distinguishing factor provides further support for our conclusion that the cases which the trial court used to establish waiver are not dispositive of the instant appeal.

Commonwealth v. Lee

401 Pa. Super. 591 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1991

If you find that there were any qualifying facts indicating a contrary intent, such facts would prevent application of this principle by you ... (N.T. 4-6-89 at pp. 23-25.) … The above instruction is also consistent with the well-established rule in this Commonwealth that “the use of a deadly instrument on a vital part of the body is sufficient to establish the specific intent to kill required

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.

Com. v. Vergara-Dominguez, U.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2026

One of those qualifying crimes is trafficking in persons.” … T nonimmigrants who qualify may also be able to adjust their status and become lawful permanent residents (obtain a Green card).

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.

Refuse Mgmt. Sys. v. CONSOL. RECYCL. AND TRANSFER SYS.

448 Pa. Super. 402 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 1996

Novation is not specifically enumerated as an affirmative defense in Pa.R.C.P. 1030, however, the list is clearly not exclusive. … Clearly, any material facts set forth as new matter, including affirmative defenses, raise issues that are not encompassed in the previous pleading.

Jermyn's Election Expenses

57 Pa. Super. 109 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1914

L. 25, each one of these three judges was duly qualified and authorized to act as a judge of the court of quarter sessions for that county, and to hold a separate court of quarter sessions for the trial, hearing and disposition … Keeping in view that the paramount object and purpose of this act was to have accounts of the candidates filed in court, and be then subjected to an audit, it is clearly of the class of legislation called remedial; in giving

Wyllner's Estate

65 Pa. Super. 396 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1917

Wyllner, who duly qualified as such. The personal property of the estate was accounted for and distributed under the first account of the executors. Morris A. … arising out of the widow’s election, the parties entitled to the income of what remained of the estate were not entitled to take it in the same proportions in which they held the estate in remainder, it was, therefore, a case clearly

In Re Appeal of Coats

2004 Pa. Super. 125 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2004

. ¶ 7 Considering section 1306 under the first prong of the standard, it is well established that the state has a compelling interest in regulating marriages and requiring applicants to obtain marriage licenses. … A statute is not unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the constitution. Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 574 Pa. 460 , 832 A.2d 418 (2003).

Menites, Inc. v. WHTM ABC 27 News

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2017

Under this privilege, media defendants have qualified immunity from defamation liability when they report on official governmental proceedings. Id. … “However, this qualified immunity is forfeited if the publisher steps out of the scope of the privilege or abuses the ‘occasion.’

Meyers, M. v. Certifiied Guaranty Company, LLC

2019 Pa. Super. 316 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2019

Super. 1990)).11 The United States Supreme Court has distilled this concept yet further, explaining that a speaker does not become immune from liability merely by couching a statement as an “opinion”: Even … Accordingly, and as held by Pennsylvania courts, a statement qualified by the speaker as being only an opinion may nevertheless be considered a statement of fact if it could “reasonably be interpreted” as such by the audience