Case law

Mason v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital

286 Pa. Super. 354 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 1981

Such a ruling would provide the medical profession with unwarranted immunity in those cases where the patient seeks to avoid pregnancy. … "As Justice Rutledge said . . . immunity tends to foster negligence while liability tends to induce care and caution." Flagiello v.

Commonwealth v. Ward

188 A.3d 1301 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2018

The [a]dmission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. … 1096 (Pa.Super. 1979) (“A physician who examines the gunshot wounds suffered by a decedent may give his opinion regarding the direction and distance from which such wounds were inflicted though that physician is not qualified

Belas v. Melanovich

247 Pa. Super. 313 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1977

One court, indeed, has suggested that “[i]n establishing [its] policy [a court] may decide to go farther than we did and rule that any permittee has the protection of such an omnibus clause.” Gillen v. … A court cannot, and should not, be immune from considerations of social policy. It may well be that in a given case such considerations will be decisive. See, e.g., cases cited in Spallone v.

R. B. Equipment Co. v. Williams, Shields, Snyder & Goas

304 Pa. Super. 31 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 1982

It is well established that an order dismissing fewer than all counts of a multi-count complaint is interlocutory and unappealable because the appellant is not out of court. See: Veno v. … The majority has decided to quash the appeal as clearly interlocutory and unappealable. Because I would reach the merits of the question, I respectfully dissent.

Royal Batting & Felting Co. v. Klein

149 Pa. Super. 622 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1941

At the time of his death he had at least a qualified property in a certain 1938 Ford Coach and was in actual possession thereof. … We think appellant was clearly bound by the affidavit and admission of its president: Com. v. Lintott, 64 Pa. Superior Ct. 328 ; May, Stern & Co. v. Lintner, 67 Pa. Superior Ct. 422 ; and Automobile Finance Co. v.

Commonwealth v. Kemp

2008 Pa. Super. 274 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2008

Also, the totality of the circumstances test does not limit our inquiry to an examination of only those facts that clearly indicate criminal conduct. … Thus, Trooper DeLuca had more facts at his disposal to establish reasonable suspicion than did the officer in Rogers . ¶ 25 This case is clearly distinguishable from that upon which Appellant relies, Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Bujanowski

418 Pa. Super. 163 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1992

The prior inconsistent statement of Ronald Bujanowski, Jr. in the instant case does not qualify as admissible substantive evidence under Commonwealth v. … This procedure has none of the safe guards referred to and relied upon by the Supreme Court in Brady and clearly is not covered by that court's holding therein.

Commonwealth v. Yanoff

456 Pa. Super. 222 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 1997

The duty to retreat clearly applied, given the facts of this case. … The fact that Appellant shot the victim in the back clearly undermines his claim of self-defense.

Bratina, M. v. Bunting, W.

2025 Pa. Super. 224 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2025

The four main claims were clearly presented in the bolded headings of the 1925(b) statement. … - 14 - J-S19029-25 A property owner is generally “‘deemed qualified, by reason of h[er] relationship as owner, to give estimates of the value of what [s]he owns regardless

Martin v. Philadelphia

54 Pa. Super. 563 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1913

Opinion by Orlady, J., The undisputed facts of this case are so out of the ordinary that it is necessary to keep them clearly in mind in determining” the liability of the defendant. … This force had proved sufficient to control any ordinary electrical or storm disturbance, but it was not possible to secure additional men, who were qualified to do such work, because all of the other companies requiring

Quatrochi v. Gaiters

251 Pa. Super. 115 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1977

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reiterated the traditional rule that “. in the absence of fraud, the return of service of a sheriff, which is full and complete on its face, is conclusive and immune from attack by … The record does not clearly establish the date that appellee filed his petition to open the default judgment.

Commonwealth v. Geiger

2008 Pa. Super. 23 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2008

Only the attorneys for the defense and for the Commonwealth, persons necessary to operate the equipment, a qualified shorthand reporter and any person whose presence would contribute to the welfare and well-being of the child … Such a constitutional right could not be more clearly enunciated. Accordingly, we hold that §§ 5984 and 5985 on their face are repugnant to our state constitution and therefore are invalid.

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).

Ortiz, J. v. Lincoln Electric

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2024

PAC Worldwide therefore clearly had the right to direct and control the work that Ortiz was performing when she was injured. … Because the undisputed facts established that PAC Worldwide was Ortiz’s employer under the WCA and was therefore immune from tort liability for Ortiz’s injury, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in PAC

Commonwealth v. Hood

2005 Pa. Super. 93 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2005

In Upshur , when considering whether a statement qualified as an excited utterance, an en banc panel of this Court held that the declarant’s assertion that he witnessed the event was “insufficient to establish the trustworthiness … This line of cross-examination clearly attacked Oliver’s credibility. Therefore, it was permissible cross-examination.

Commonwealth v. Bolger

42 Pa. Super. 115 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1910

of the trial the defendant moved to quash the bill, not because of any irregularity exhibited by the record as it then existed, but because of certain alleged facts dehors the record, the existence of which he offered to establish … As to the character of the testimony he gave, it is his right to be silent if he choose to remain so, but it seems anomalous to say that he may predicate immunity from indictment by the grand jury on a fact, the existence

Baehr v. Baehr

2005 Pa. Super. 421 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2005

As for her computer training, mother testified that her nine months of training in the computer field qualified her for a limited amount of work in computers. Id, at 17. … This is a misrepresentation of her testimony in which she clearly stated she did not want to work in the computer field. N.T., 2/24/04, at 18. 4 .

Hospodar v. Schick

2005 Pa. Super. 319 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2005

PennDOT may recall the operating privileges of one whose incompetence to drive a motor vehicle has been established under the Code. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1519. ¶ 8 Presently, Appellants contend that the Motor Vehicle Code only requires … Clearly, the provisions implicated here do not mention a duty to report the patient's medical deficiency to any specified third party.

Ettinger v. Triangle-Pacific Corp.

2002 Pa. Super. 142 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2002

Moreover, “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. … [Aufiero] was properly qualified as an expert witness in engineering. In accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, it was proper to submit Mr.

In re N.W.

2004 Pa. Super. 368 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2004

Appellant’s brief at 4. 5 ¶ 5 We begin by noting the following well-established legal principles. … preserve and reunify the family need not be made or continue to be made, determine whether the county agency has filed or sought to join a petition to terminate parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified