Case law

Com. v. Camejo, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 24, 2025

Appellant had a handgun on his hip which was clearly visible. At no time was [V]ictim seen with a gun. … At some point Appellant got a long gun and clearly displayed it in the direction of [V]ictim.

Joseph v. Scranton Times L.P.

2008 Pa. Super. 217 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2008

Words which standing alone may reasonably be understood as defamatory may be so explained or qualified by their context as to make such an interpretation unreasonable. … However, it is important to note that immunity from defamation liability is not guaranteed merely because a defendant protests that he published in good faith. Id.

Commonwealth v. Devine

2011 Pa. Super. 163 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2011

The testimony clearly demonstrates an action with “recklessness of consequences.” … Pursell, 555 Pa. 233 , 724 A.2d 293 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 975 , 120 S.Ct. 422 , 145 L.Ed.2d 330 (1999) (applying Ellis II and holding courts will not be required to consider defendant’s pro se filings when qualified

McConnell, B. v. B. Braun Medical Inc.

2019 Pa. Super. 310 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2019

particular county when a defendants’ marketing decisions have a statewide or national impact: With regard to the public factors, this litigation involves seven pharmaceutical companies that market vaccines and immune … See Vaughan, 208 A.3d at 77 (“In sum, faced with private and public factors that clearly support Vaughan’s choice to proceed in Philadelphia, we conclude there were not weighty reasons to disturb [plaintiff’s] choice of

Teodorski v. Teodorski

2004 Pa. Super. 313 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2004

This intent must be clearly manifested and communicated to the other spouse.” Sinha v. Sinha, 515 Pa. 14 , 526 A.2d 765, 767 (1987). … Alimony “is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.”

Elder v. Pennsylvania Railroad

118 Pa. Super. 137 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1935

The decisions clearly establish the rule that the status of the employee with respect to interstate commerce, where the service is separable, is tested by the work that he is actually performing at the time: Illinois C. … If appointed and after qualifying, they have the power of policemen of the city of Philadelphia in the several counties in which they are authorized to act.

Commonwealth v. Watson

215 Pa. Super. 498 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1969

He may have family with whom he wishes to establish a continuing relationship. He may have or seek employment or may enter a job-training program to *502 qualify for the employment. … Accordingly, probation is a form of punishment which allows the probationer to establish a status for himself.

Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. McAninley

2002 Pa. Super. 202 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2002

Ziatyk was a passenger, the diesel truck Appellee was operating in the present case clearly does not qualify as a “car.” … divided en banc panel of this Court affirmed. ¶ 18 In the plurality Opinion, three judges, led by Judge, Schiller, concluded that the exclusion violates three, broad public policies, specifically. (1) the MVFRL’s purpose of establishing

Com. v. Lutz, A.

270 A.3d 571 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2022

A warrantless search or seizure is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 8, subject to a few established, well-delineated exceptions. See id. … However, the [Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, 35 P.S. §§ 780-101─144] still renders possession of marijuana illegal for those not qualified under the MMA.

Com. v. Held, J., Appeal of: TribTotal Media

235 A.3d 339 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2020

We believe the First Amendment provides a qualified right of access to jurors’ names, but not addresses.”). … While we agree that Long clearly establishes a right to access the jurors’ names under the First Amendment, we disagree with the parties and the lower court that the order here is subject to the strict-scrutiny standard

Com. v. Held, J., Appeal of: TribTotal Media

2020 Pa. Super. 161 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2020

We believe the First Amendment provides a qualified right of access to jurors’ names, but not addresses.”). … While we agree that Long clearly establishes a right to access the jurors’ names under the First Amendment, we disagree with the parties and the lower court that the order here is subject to the strict-scrutiny standard

Com. v. Pacheco, D.

227 A.3d 358 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2020

Super. 2011) (holding that it is well-established that an appellant must properly specify in his concise statement the error to be addressed on appeal). … Kirkland was qualified, he could testify generally about the cartels, but could not testify specifically to Pacheco’s case. See id. at 222; see also Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/18, at 17.

Santorella v. Donegal Mutual Insurance

2006 Pa. Super. 202 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2006

.) ¶5 ‘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 … As the Swords II court continued, “We, therefore, hold that Section 1714 of the MVFRL clearly and unambiguously renders an owner of a currently registered motor vehicle ineligible to recover first-party benefits when the

Pringle v. Rapaport

2009 Pa. Super. 171 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2009

The evidence at trial clearly established that Dr. Rapaport determined that this was a shoulder dysto-cia delivery. 1 Dr. … the “two schools of thought” doctrine in the context of the appropriate instruction to be given to a jury due to the confusion between the appellate courts as to the proper test to determine whether a school of thought qualifies

Owens Appeal

167 Pa. Super. 10 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1950

Owens renounced, the son qualified as executor, and at her request has managed the affairs of the estate. … Hartung’s testimony established physical infirmities, but it was palpably insufficient to prove that Mrs. Owens was feeble-minded or mentally defective.

Com. v. Rivera, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2023

The PCRA court concluded that Appellant failed to establish an exception to the statutory time- bar. We affirm. … Nor could it qualify as a “watershed” rule of procedure as the High Court has since declared that no ruling will ever qualify under that exception. Edwards v.

Commonwealth v. Stoops

723 A.2d 184 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1998

which the defendant is charged with a violation of section 3731 ..., the amount of alcohol ... in the defendant’s blood, as shown by chemical testing of the person’s breath, blood or urine, which tests were conducted by qualified … Clearly, police compliance with the regulations was at issue in this case. *189 Judge Connelly found the testimony developed by appellee with respect to the twenty-minute rule also warranted suppression of the breath test

O'Neill, J. v. van Rossum, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2018

_________ preserve this issue by not raising it clearly and concisely in their Rule 1925(b) statement, we decline to do so. … This line of cases thus establishes that while genuine petitioning is immune from antitrust liability, sham petitioning is not.” BE & K Const. Co. v.

Larsen v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.

411 Pa. Super. 534 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1991

Justice Larsen’s complaint clearly alleges concerted action as well as mutual agency. … Clearly, without the transcript, the PN/PG defendants could not publish excerpts of it.

Commonwealth v. Washington

438 Pa. Super. 131 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1994

However, “one of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent.” Schneckloth v. … In such a situation, since the evidence is clearly insufficient, the suppression court has no reason, or need, to balance the evidence before it against the government’s privilege. Commonwealth v.