Case law

Estate of Clark

10 Pa. Super. 423 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 1899

The only effect of the legislation was to establish a distinction between individuals duly qualified under the law to become sureties and corporations so qualified. … Such sureties are entitled to equal privileges and immunities. The conclusion of the learned court below seems unassailable. Judgment affirmed.

Troescher v. Grody

2005 Pa. Super. 77 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2005

Nason Hospital, supra, and could potentially allow medical providers to avoid producing documents which could show negligent hiring or supervision of medical professions, which ... would clearly be in violation of public … We further noted that "[i]n order to argue that the documents requested are ‘original documents,’ a party must establish this fact before the court.

Carey v. Carey

121 Pa. Super. 251 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 11, 1935

Differing from intrinsic fraud, or perjury at the trial, upon a question contested in court by the parties, facts establishing extrinsic fraud, such as, that the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance … At the outset it must be remembered that under our long established Pennsylvania practice it was not necessary to bring a separate suit to invalidate the decree.

Oweida v. Tribune-Review Publishing Co.

410 Pa. Super. 112 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1991

clearly state that the allegations of the complaint were simply unproven allegations and not established facts, appellants had forfeited their conditional privilege. … The burden is here on the Defendants to establish their right to the protection of a qualified privilege.

Topper v. Kulp

397 Pa. Super. 601 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1990

Thus, the plaintiffs argue that “[r]aising this [RULWA] defense ... after the discovery is complete ... clearly prejudices the Plaintiff because the effort to amend has been late.’’ Id. at page 5 (Emphasis in original). … Civ.P. 1035. *608 At bar, the plaintiffs have set forth in their pleadings that the appellants have engaged in willful and malicious misconduct taking them out of the immunizing sphere of the RULWA, and if established at

Altimaro v. Bohn

372 Pa. Super. 265 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1988

Immunity from assignment and alienation in the above context includes immunity from garnishment and attachment. See Treasury Regulations, 41 Fed.Reg. § 56334. … Magrini, 263 Pa.Super. 366 , 398 A.2d 179 (1979), wherein this Court concluded that an ERISA qualified pension plan was not immune from attachment to pay for the support of a participant’s family.

Commonwealth v. Petry

81 Pa. Super. 27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1922

Opinion by Trexler, J., The defendant was charged with having unlawfully engaged in the practice of dentistry without having first duly qualified and registered as a practitioner in dentistry and without having first obtained … “The act clearly provides a penalty for any person practicing dentistry unless previously licensed and to hold that the legislature by the use of these words ‘shall begin’ intended to grant immunity to persons who had practiced

Martin, S. v. Holy Spirit Hospital

2017 Pa. Super. 11 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2017

A25009/16 purpose of this act to establish procedures whereby this policy can be effected. … Clearly, the decedent was not "free to leave," as though she arrived at the ER complaining of a scraped elbow. This was a woman in serious mental distress.

Commonwealth v. Campbell

257 Pa. Super. 160 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1978

While inconsistent verdicts of this kind present a difficulty, they are intrinsic to the jury system and appear to be a lesser evil than granting immunity to the accomplice because justice has miscarried in the charge against … Because there were other persons with whom Brown could be convicted of conspiring, the holding in Hunter was clearly not applicable.

Coolbaugh v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

2003 Pa. Super. 32 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2003

The Cool-baughs contend that the court erred in finding Slusser Brothers entitled to “immunity” pursuant to the “government contractor defense” stated in Ference v. … “Our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion.” Id.

Commonwealth v. Manlin

270 Pa. Super. 290 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1979

detention search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or (2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity … “It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case at hand.” United States v.

Feldman, B. v. Vito Braccia Constr.

325 A.3d 691 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2024

Whether [JNOV] is required because [VBC] is clearly entitled to immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act? 3. … Gallagher, each clearly testified that Altino was the entity retained for the tree removal job. Mr.

Babich v. Pavich

270 Pa. Super. 140 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1979

A.2d 389 (1968), our Supreme Court declared: “While no hard and fast rule exists to determine whether a particular relationship is that of employer-employee or owner-independent contractor, certain guidelines have been established … We refuse to construe section 205 in such a manner to reach a result clearly not intended by the legislature.

Matos, S. v. Geisinger Medical Center

291 A.3d 899 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2023

Clearly, an application cannot be denied until it is first formally made. … Clearly, the regulation and its accompanying form concern a different step in the voluntary inpatient examination and treatment process than what is at issue in this case.

Commonwealth v. Handfield

2011 Pa. Super. 269 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2011

evidence is not tainted by establishing that they had an independent, legitimate source for the disputed evidence. … a ruling on the admissibility of evidence was proper is well settled: Admission of evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, *208 and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court clearly

McArdle v. Tronetti

426 Pa. Super. 607 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1993

Our standard for reviewing this claim is well-established. … If, however, the court in the first action would clearly not have had jurisdiction to entertain *614 the omitted theory or ground (or, having jurisdiction, would clearly have declined to exercise it as a matter of discretion

Hiles v. Brandywine Club

443 Pa. Super. 462 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1995

by its own legal conduct from asserting an immunity under 47 P.S. § 4-497? … Here, *21 the trial court’s comment was clearly not one which would affect the outcome of the verdict, especially in light of the fact that no evidence was presented to prove that Diviney was visibly intoxicated.

Commonwealth v. Showers

452 Pa. Super. 135 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1996

Although no case directly holds that a defendant who takes the stand may have her credibility impeached by reputation evidence, a review of case law clearly indicates that such impeachment is permissible. … Thus, the Commonwealth established an on-going, continuous reputation for dishonesty, corroborated by more than one person and spanning eleven years.

Commonwealth v. Rolan

2008 Pa. Super. 291 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2008

altercation and was not immune to the potential danger posed by life on the street.” … His testimony at the preliminary hearing, before the agreement with the Commonwealth for immunity was finalized, was substantially identical to his testimony at trial.

Commonwealth v. Munchinski

401 Pa. Super. 300 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1990

The Attorney General was not contacted and the district attorney refused to grant immunity. The court, therefore, was correct in denying immunity. … The district attorney refused to grant immunity because Scaglione had direct appeals and collateral appeals available to him and, therefore, any grant of immunity would prejudice the Commonwealth’s case against him.