Case law

Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc.

2001 Pa. Super. 125 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2001

In In re Estate of Simmons-Carton, we examined the question of whether both the natural mother and purported natural father qualified to be named co-administrators of the estate of their daughter, Dory, who died intestate … The Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1926, provides: “No statute shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly.”

Com. v. Reddick, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2025

Parker's invocation was proper because while he did have immunity from the Commonwealth for his pending cases in state comi, court, that immm1ity immunity did not extend to Mr. … Therefore, the charges fail to qualify as vital impeaclunent impeachment evidence.

Kratt v. Horrow

455 Pa. Super. 140 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1996

However, when his testimony is taken as a whole, it clearly met that standard. … If it was, simply stumbling, if it was the effect of medications, either way, the man struck his head and was found by a physician to be disoriented to two of the three main — I guess qualifiers — that we use to judge a person

Com. v. Rodriguez, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2017

The Commonwealth also called Catherine Palla, who was qualified as an expert in DNA profiling. [Id. at 166-67.] … Our Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and our case law provide the well-established requirements for preserving a claim for appellate review.

Brandon v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

2011 Pa. Super. 240 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2011

As stated in Storm this is clearly an instance that involves special skills and training not common to a lay person. … Thus, an expert is necessary for Appellant to prove his negligence claim against Appellee, and absent the testimony of a qualified expert, a jury’s verdict would be nothing more than conjecture. See Schmoyer v.

Regis Insurance v. All American Rathskeller, Inc.

2009 Pa. Super. 99 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2009

This qualifies as “harmful or offensive contact between two or more persons.” … Crowe clearly applies in this case.

Buchanan v. CENTURY FED. SAV. & L. ASS'N

259 Pa. Super. 37 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1978

Cohen [10] established what is known as the "collateral order" doctrine. … Section 3.08, which is a release, was amended to include a qualifying provision to insure that individuals still have a cause of action against an institution for misapplication of the escrow funds.

Poltorak v. Sandy

236 Pa. Super. 355 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1975

Poltorak contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was contribu-torily negligent or that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. … I believe that on the basis of this witness’ prior experience and on the testimony given by this witness, such records were offered by a “qualified witness” within the meaning of the Act.

Rourke v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance

2015 Pa. Super. 100 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2015

We will affirm the grant of such a motion only when the moving party’s right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt that the trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise … See Penn National’s Brief at 8 (stating, in relevant part, that Frederick was not a ward because “he was a competent, nineteen-year-old man who did not qualify as a foster child and indeed had already been formally adjudicated

Carter, T. v. Peerless Indemnity

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2015

Finally, [i]n determining what the parties intended by their contract, the law must look to what they clearly expressed. … The policy then clearly spells out what “insured” means in this context.

Matharu v. Muir

2011 Pa. Super. 134 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2011

During this sixth pregnancy, [Mother] knew she was iso-immunized and that there were certain risks associated with pregnancy. 34. … [Mother] became aware that she had become iso-immunized in October, 1998, after the birth of her second child, [SJ 35.

In the Int. of: Y.E.A., Appeal of: Y.E.A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2024

However, “in a prosecution for aggravated assault on a police officer[,] the Commonwealth has no obligation to establish that the officer actually suffered a bodily injury; rather, the Commonwealth must establish only … Finally, regarding the fourth prong of the Capitolo test, limitations on justification as established by the legislature, 18 Pa. C.S.

Com. v. Fitzpatrick, J.

316 A.3d 987 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 2024

That is clearly the case here. … Caruso is a qualified expert witness whose testimony is competent and has an adequate basis in fact.

H.Z. v. M.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2019

--The tests shall be made by experts qualified as examiners of blood types, who shall be appointed by the court. … Clearly, that section applies to findings of paternity established via blood testing. No blood testing took place in the instant matter.

Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania v. First Union National Bank

2006 Pa. Super. 305 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2006

a complete expression of their agreement, the parties’ intent is a question to be resolved by the finder of fact[J We will not reverse such finding unless it is unsupported by the evidence, or unless the fact finder has clearly … Banks are broadly immune from liability for the consequences of filing a SAR. 12 C.F.R. §21.11 (1). A similar regulation covers state banking institutions in the federal reserve system. 12 C.F.R. § 208.62 . .

Gasbarre Products v. Smith, S.

270 A.3d 1209 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2022

The Outline is replete with defined, essential terms that establish the rights and duties of the parties. … or mistake,” except when it is introduced “not to contradict or vary, but to explain the contract, as when something is omitted . . . so as to - 19 - J-A09027-21 qualify

Com. v. Yanovitsky, M.

319 A.3d 522 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2024

Yanovitsky maintained that Lushtak was qualified as an expert in piano performances. Lushtak had viewed a video of J.G. playing piano, and in her opinion, J.G. would not have received a passing grade. … statute or other contract, “school” usually does not include universities, business colleges, or other institutions of higher education unless the intent to include such institutions is clearly

Commonwealth v. Spanier

192 A.3d 141 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2018

. § 5554 when the Commonwealth can prove additional facts that qualify to toll a limitations period. … He was clearly supervising a child’s welfare pursuant to Lynn. The Lynn Court, however, did not address the duty of care question.

Com. v. Nasir, A.

2023 Pa. Super. 263 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2023

But what Your Honor has to see is whether or not you’ve established some sort of pattern. … As noted above, the trial court’s third-prong conclusion is a finding of fact to which we must give “great deference” and overturn only if it was “clearly erroneous.” Murray, supra at 568.

Bernhart v. Kovach

307 Pa. Super. 86 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1982

. § 6704(e) 2 which provides: (c) Limitation of actions—All actions to establish the paternity of a child born out of wedlock brought under this section must be commenced within six years of the birth of the child, except … The complaint for support was filed on September 27, 1979, clearly more than two years after the last support payment was made. The six-year statute of limitations was applied.