Case law

Kelly Systems v. Fiore, L. v. OGP Architects

198 A.3d 1087 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2018

Super. 2005) (stating that “[t]he goal of the certificate of merit is to weed out clearly nonmeritorious lawsuits early in the litigation process.”). … If the claims in [Kelly’s C]omplaint are in negligence, then the [c]ourt must analyze the claims to see if the claims are related[, thereby qualifying] Fiore’s [Joinder] [C]omplaint [] under the rule.

Forest Glen Condominium Ass'n v. Forest Green Commons Ltd. Partnership

2006 Pa. Super. 99 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2006

When a party seeks summary judgment, a court shall enter judgment whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense that could be established by additional … Clearly the legislature intended to treat easements, contracts, and leases differently within the UCA and chose those terms carefully.

Zehner, J. v. Zehner, E.

195 A.3d 574 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2018

Zehner (“Husband”) appeals from the Order directing the modification of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter the “2015 QDRO”) that Husband and his ex-wife, Erika L. … Husband acknowledges as much, and such language is clearly not supported by the law.

Commonwealth v. Cost

238 Pa. Super. 591 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1976

It is well-established by the decision in Miranda v. … Nielsen, supra, is established in Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Perez

2000 Pa. Super. 283 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2000

Herbert, 348 Pa.Super. 566 , 502 A.2d 690 (1985) (Where defendant seeking immunity from prosecution under Rule 1100 made himself “unavailable” for trial by hiding under an alias while incarcerated, that portion of time was … This is clearly not the intended effect of the rule.

Commonwealth v. Barnosky

264 Pa. Super. 443 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1979

Instantly, both Michelle and Danny recounted the facts of their experience clearly and consistently. … It nonetheless appears that appellant’s proposed charge emanated from the difficulty the district attorney experienced in qualifying his witnesses.

Com. v. Powell, H.

290 A.3d 751 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2023

Our Supreme Court has also clearly stated that “we are inclined to accept any reasonably verifiable evidence of the date that the prisoner deposits the appeal with the prison authorities.” Id. … how it qualifies for an exception from the PCRA time-bar.

Com. v. Crawford, C.

2021 Pa. Super. 102 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2021

Crawford first argues that Section 6701(b)(1) of the statute is vague because it does not clearly define who qualifies as a military “veteran.” … There is, in fact, every indication from Crawford’s own conduct that he knew his real background fell short of qualifying him as a veteran; otherwise he would not have lied about it.

Commonwealth v. Brooker

2014 Pa. Super. 209 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2014

The Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing the harmlessness of the error. … Thus, a statute will not be found unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution.

Vincent J. Fumo Irrevocable Children's Trust Ex Rel. Benefit of Fumo

2014 Pa. Super. 235 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2014

The Orphans’ Court clearly (and correctly) regarded Repici as Father’s alter ego: I do not believe Mr. … R.R. 1095-96 (Settlor’s Contingent Designation Of Successor Trustee For The Trust Established For the Benefit Of Allison Fumo Pursuant To the Vincent J. Fumo Irrevocable Children's Trust Agreement). .

Commonwealth v. Strong

2003 Pa. Super. 157 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2003

[[Image here]] Q And later on at [page] 1253 in the official trial transcript and you testified whether you had any immunity or any deals and you answered no; that was a lie? A Right. … In Smith, the prosecution deliberately withheld for four years clearly exculpatory physical evidence that was crucial to Smith’s potentially successful defense.

Grubb v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

255 Pa. Super. 381 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1978

However, according to the established staff-resident relationship at Albert Einstein, Dr. Beller had the right to direct Dr. … On December 2, 1966 Stryker was joined at a time clearly within the statutory period.

Farese, L. v. Robinson, J.

2019 Pa. Super. 336 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2019

However, it is clearly stated on page 55 of their appellate brief and also in their Rule 1925(b) concise statement. … Appellants’ counsel objected but never clearly requested a mistrial. N.T., 10/3/2016, at 71, 90.

Com. v. Teagle, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2024

Teagle argues that Detective Lucke, who was qualified as an expert in video extraction, gave expert opinion when he drew the jury’s attention to portions of his compilation video that established similar mannerisms by … It is well-established that assertions in a newspaper article are not evidence.

Pennsylvania Railroad v. Inland Traction Co.

25 Pa. Super. 115 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 1904

It was there held that the view taken by counsel “ would establish a distinction between turnpikes and ordinary highways as to the rights of abutting landowners, giving the power of eminent domain in one case and not in the … But upon the point now *129 under consideration Justice Dean, speaking for the Supreme Court, said: “ As to the first question, the court below was clearly right in holding that the ownership of the land in fee by appellant

Kapres v. Heller

417 Pa. Super. 371 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1992

The standard of care in the latter case is derived from public policy clearly enunciated by the legislature. … There is no support for immunizing the under twenty-one year old server. Clearly, the person over eighteen serving alcohol to a person under twenty-one could be criminally responsible as an accomplice. 18 Pa. S.C. 306.

Davison v. Wilkes-Barre & Wyoming Valley Traction Co.

10 Pa. Super. 442 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 1899

It was not shown that the plaintiff and his witnesses who testified on this point possessed knowledge or experience that qualified them to judge of this; their estimates were clearly nothing but the crudest guesswork. … As electric cars may lawfully be run upon the streets, and may certainly maintain a fair rate of speed, it is not possible to establish an allegation of negligence in respect of speed without testimony showing a standard,

Com. v. Williams, C.

255 A.3d 565 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2021

Testimony by Expert Witnesses A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’ … However, the testimony of the witnesses, coupled with the surveillance videos, clearly indicate that [Williams] was the shooter.

Commonwealth v. Garzone

2010 Pa. Super. 58 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2010

And that’s clearly what was understood or at least what you asked the [appellants] and said that they understood. They were open as to years. They were open clearly as to any fines. … On appeal, the appellant argued that he was immunized from costs because the statute governing multi-county grand juries, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4553(b), makes an inter-governmental allocation of those costs to the state.

Com. v. JHB

760 A.2d 27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2000

This statement of law, however, must be qualified in that informal adjustment is only available before a petition is filed or if the petition is dismissed for failure of the Commonwealth to establish the charges alleged in … This case clearly falls within the parameters of the two statutory procedures.