Case law

Commonwealth v. Miller

430 Pa. Super. 297 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1993

Mahoney, 460 Pa. 201 , 331 A.2d 488 (1975), or otherwise qualify it as “Commonwealth’s evidence” as referred to in McGuire . … Justice Larsen’s lead opinion in Stonehouse did not garner enough joinders to establish it as precedent.

Commonwealth v. Greene

2011 Pa. Super. 148 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2011

Such actions clearly do not amount to placing or threatening to place another in fear of serious bodily injury. Similarly, in Commonwealth v. … Our reference to the facts of the Massachusetts cases does not mean that we look to the facts of a particular case for determining if it qualifies as a crime of violence.

R.M. v. J.S.

2011 Pa. Super. 98 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 2011

Thus, Father is correct that Maternal Grandmother does not qualify as “a person acting as a parent.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5402. Nonetheless, relying on the holding in Wagner v. … See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1926 ("No statute shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly.”). It is therefore inapplicable to the case at bar. .

Commonwealth v. Ryan

253 Pa. Super. 92 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1978

The record clearly indicates in this case that Carter had ample opportunity to observe appellant when he was beaten and robbed, and made a positive, unwavering identification at trial. N.T. Trial, pp. 384-399; 438-499. … I noted my belief that the Commonwealth had established as much likelihood of the co-defendant's eventual arrest as the Commonwealth established in Garvin .

Commonwealth v. Stewart

436 Pa. Super. 262 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 1994

It found that the affidavit did not sufficiently establish that the information sought to be withheld fell within the statute. … Section 5945.1 sets forth definitions clearly explaining the scope of which communications are privileged between the victim and the sexual assault counselor.

In the Interest of: T.J.J.M., a Minor

190 A.3d 618 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2018

reunify the family need not be made or continue to be made, 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 … “These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 978 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

Commonwealth v. Bachert

271 Pa. Super. 72 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 1979

The exact cause of death was established by Coroner Dr. … A state trooper, qualified as a small arms expert, testified that based on various ballistics tests Weber’s gun was the weapon used to shoot the victim.

Kowall, L. v. US Steel Corp.

325 A.3d 802 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2024

It is well-established that this Court may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See Lynn v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 70 A.3d 814, 823 (Pa. Super. 2013). … The court concludes that the investigatory expenses already incurred by [Appellees’] attorneys qualify under 35 P.S. §§ 6020.103 & 6020.702(3).

Nationwide Assurance Co. v. Easley

2008 Pa. Super. 240 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2008

On the strength of established case law, *846 we hold that the exclusion clause precluding coverage for injuries sustained in accidents occurring when using a vehicle for hire is valid. … Moreover, voiding the “other household vehicle” exclusion would empower insureds to collect UIM benefits multiplied by the number of insurance policies on which they could qualify as an insured, even though they only paid

Gehris v. Gehris

233 Pa. Super. 144 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1975

If before, then the husband cannot qualify as an innocent party. Cf. Orsuto v. Orsuto, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 532 , 91 A. 2d 284 (1952). … Constant nagging and arguing may well establish a settled course of conduct which may clearly demonstrate that the love in a marriage has been replaced by hate, and this may establish grounds of indignities. Fodor v.

Hess v. Gebhard & Co., Inc.

2001 Pa. Super. 65 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2001

Hess did not feel that he was qualified for either position, and, in December 1996, he expressed his disinterest in the offered positions. … Trial Court Adjudication, 12/29/99, at 9-10. ¶ 26 Clearly, Hoaster and Gebhard needed to enforce the covenant not to compete to prevent Hess from using inside knowledge to lure away Gebhard’s clients that were formerly Hoaster

In Re CB

861 A.2d 287 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2004

We wholeheartedly concur with the trial court that in light of Father's clearly established moral depravity, he poses a threat to A.L. Hence, we affirm the suspension of visitation between him and A.L. … Clearly, the result in Davis was to enable the local child welfare agency to intervene and to ensure that the child was safe.

Parr, J. v. Ford Motor Company

2014 Pa. Super. 281 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2014

Where qualified experts venture competing theories, each to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty based upon information and anal-yses regularly relied upon by their scientific communities, the jury, not the court, … Given that the Supreme Court compelled the administration of such a jury instruction under circumstances where fault was no more clearly — and perhaps less clearly— established than in this case, thereby implicitly affirming

Commonwealth v. Quarles

229 Pa. Super. 363 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1974

Qualified personnel means a physician or a police officer who has received training in the use of such equipment in a training program approved by the secretary. … “No one will deny that we have reached a time in our modern way of life when the motor vehicle has clearly become a necessity to many people.

Trombetta v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.

2006 Pa. Super. 229 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2006

These exceptions are contained in the qualifying provision that states when de novo review is applicable. … Clearly, Pennsylvania law employs a similar principle. See Friedman v. Grand Cent.

Fredericks v. Castora

241 Pa. Super. 211 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1976

Other jurisdictions have confronted the problem of varying degrees of care and sought to control the ceaseless variation of the concept of negligence by establishing a single standard: “Care does not increase or diminish … In Whitner the trial court failed to qualify the “but for” mode of expression, used to explain proximate cause, with the requirement that the circumstances under consideration must be closely connected to the injury in the

Weisman v. Green Tree Insurance

447 Pa. Super. 549 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1996

Finally, they conclude that the "ambiguity" which they have established requires that the insurance policy be construed against the Insurer. … To say that a shotgun blast is one of the events that would qualify as an explosion is not to say that the term explosion has more than one meaning.

Bauer v. Pottsville Area Emergency Medical Services, Inc.

2000 Pa. Super. 252 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2000

At most, appellant contacted appellee regarding his status as a full-time employee according to the terms of the employee handbook, which clearly does not implicate the FLSA. … Appellant based his complaint upon the creation of an implied contract and, thus, failed to establish that he engaged in protected activity under the FLSA.

Commonwealth v. McMullen

721 A.2d 370 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1998

As a result, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the evidence did not establish the requisite corpus delicti or body of the crime. … I believe this case clearly presents a situation in which the Commonwealth is violating the principles of the double jeopardy clause by successive attempts at conviction.

Hoober v. New Holland Water Co.

56 Pa. Super. 536 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1914

It ought to be clear enough that a particular witness may be qualified to give an opinion as to the market value of a property as it was before the appropriation, and yet be unable to express any conclusion of probative value … The value of his property before the appropriation which he sought to establish was attacked as being excessive and fanciful.