Case law

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.

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

Kelly v. Carborundum Co.

307 Pa. Super. 361 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1984

The primary feature of the WCA, in common with workmen's compensation acts throughout the United States, is its establishment of fixed but limited compensation for employees who are injured in work-related accidents. … Section 303(b) preserves for injured employees their common law cause of action against any negligently responsible third party and clearly bars an employer's liability for "damages, contribution or indemnity."

Com. v. Rosario, K.

248 A.3d 599 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2021

“[A]n alleged error must qualify as a clear clerical error (or a patent and obvious mistake) in order to be amenable to correction.” Commonwealth v. Borrin, 12 A.3d 466, 473 (Pa. … necessary to establish the offense of aggravated assault, namely, the infliction of serious bodily injury.”

Floors, Inc. v. Altig

2009 Pa. Super. 2 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2009

Appellant further claims that Section 1402 of the Mechanics’ Lien Law, as modified under the 2006 Amendments, is specifically qualified by the requirements of Section 1401 as it states, “[p]rovided hen rights may be waived … favor of any subcontractor, shall be a written agreement to that effect signed by all those who, under the contract, have an adverse interest to the subcontractor’s allegation. fn1 49 P.S. § 1401. 49 P.S. § 1402(a). ¶ 16 Clearly

KATZ v. Greig

234 Pa. Super. 126 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1975

The Sheriff's return, filed January 22, 1973 establishes that on January 18, 1973 the summons and complaint were served on appellee. … In my view it clearly is not. I would affirm the judgment entered by the court below.

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.

Boyles v. Boyles

179 Pa. Super. 184 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1955

The manner of her leaving fully establishes the wilfulness and malice necessary to support the charge of desertion. See Sharpe v. Sharpe, 177 Pa. Superior Ct. 76 , 110 A. 2d 804 . … Superior Ct. 401, 411 , 107 A. 2d 601 : “There is, of course, the requirement that the plaintiff in a divorce action qualify as the ‘innocent and injured spouse’ (Act of May 2, 1929, P.

Com. v. Loughran, J.

2025 Pa. Super. 266 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2025

Such statements are not expressed with the requisite degree of certainty to qualify as competent expert testimony. … Importantly, opinion testimony is inadmissible to establish a character trait. See Pa.R.E. 405(a); 608(a); see also Commonwealth v. Butler, 621 A.2d 630, 632 (Pa.

Alfred M. Lutheran Distributors, Inc. v. A.P. Weilersbacher, Inc.

437 Pa. Super. 391 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1994

In the event that a violation is established, the General Assembly has prescribed the penalties which may be imposed. … As made plain by these other statutes, the General Assembly clearly knows how to draft legislation so as to grant an individual the right to maintain a private statutory cause of action.

Com. v. Hall, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2014

Clearly, the jury believed the victim’s testimony that she was sexually assaulted and rejected the Appellant’s version. … Moreover, the verdict clearly does not shock one’s sense of justice. Trial Court Opinion, 4/28/14, at 6-7 (citations omitted).

In Re Tg

836 A.2d 1003 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2003

However, we conclude that the Commonwealth sufficiently established this element of kidnapping as well. ¶ 12 As to what qualifies as confinement in a place of isolation, this Court has held that the concept is "not geographic … Here, the victim was playing outside and was forcibly removed without parental permission to a confined place where she clearly did not want to be.

Com. v. Solomon, P.

2021 Pa. Super. 43 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2021

Armstrong was qualified to offer expert testimony as to the value of the coins at issue. See Appellant’s substituted reply brief at 4-5. … He has established that our legislature clearly knew how to provide a limited definition of the value of stolen property, and it could have specified its applicability to § 1106 if it wanted to constrain a sentencing court

McDonough v. United States Steel Corp.

228 Pa. Super. 268 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1974

Appellant’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to establish proximate cause of the injury is equally without merit. … The witness was a highly qualified engineer with extensive experience in safety engineering whose qualifications were unquestioned by appellant at trial.

Com. v. Handfield, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2023

On November 16, 2006, the Commonwealth obtained an order compelling [Handfield] to appear before the grand jury under the grant of immunity. … The PCRA court found that Handfield could not establish this exception based on an affidavit from Mr. Banks.

Commonwealth v. Atwood

411 Pa. Super. 137 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1991

More specifically, in order to establish the legitimate reasons for Rev. … In support of its contention that the witnesses were not qualified to testify on such matters as the average and reasonable expenses in this industry the trial court cites Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Butler

173 A.3d 1212 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2017

Moreover, “[o]ur Supreme Court has instructed that we must presume that statutes are constitutional and [in order to declare a statute unconstitutional] it [must] clearly, plainly, and palpably violate[] the constitution … It is equally clear that such facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Subsequently in Alleyne v.

Hammerstein v. Lindsay

440 Pa. Super. 350 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1995

This incident was clearly work related. All of the subsequent incidents either involved comments by Dr. … (injuries not covered by the Act are not subject to tort immunity).

In Re: Dravo LLC

307 A.3d 146 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2023

The court also found Plaintiffs could not establish that a corporate action would promote fraud or other injustice. … Plaintiffs further allege that the transfers violated the Pennsylvania UTPCPL and therefore would qualify as a fraud.

Commonwealth v. Romansky

702 A.2d 1064 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1997

The Commonwealth’s next witness was Michael Fuller, special agent in the Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Criminal Investigation and qualified as an expert on vehicle theft investigation and vehicle identification … The fact that Smithers was recommended to be charged by the investigating grand jury on the Bronco charges and was testifying against appellant in exchange for immunity from prosecution may have affected the jury’s verdict