Case law

Phillips Ex Rel. Williams v. Cricket Lighters

2001 Pa. Super. 109 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2001

features. ¶ 13 Appellees suggest that since the regulations apply only to fighters either manufactured or imported after the effective date of the regulation, the Commission must have intended to give all fighter manufacturers immunity … Although the Commission did delay enactment of the standard for one year, it clearly was not concerned that the changes were too swift or too drastic a change for manufacturers.

Commonwealth v. Mountain

711 A.2d 473 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1998

The Artway /Vemiero test is designed to determine whether a legislative act qualifies as punishment. … Appellant’s interest in avoiding disclosure of this information is clearly outweighed by the Commonwealth’s compelling interest in public safety.

McGonnell's License

24 Pa. Super. 642 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1904

Provided, said repeal shall not go into effect unless a majority of duly qualified voters of said county shall vote in favor of said repeal, at an election to be held as provided for in section 3 of this act.” … Supreme Court was that the act of 1885 was unconstitutional, because it related to the affairs of counties and would, if upheld, be in violation of section 7, article 3 of the constitution in that its effect would be to establish

Com. v. Hansen, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2018

Hansen’s testimony—on matters ranging from the inconsistencies in her statements to her self- interested testimony in the face of her promise of immunity from the Commonwealth. … However, the en banc panel clearly expressed that this finding “does not impose a prima facie bar against any mention of a defendant’s silence; rather, we guard against the exploitation of appellant’s right to remain silent

Commonwealth v. Cauffiel

97 Pa. Super. 202 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1929

Rowland, a justice of the peace in and for the Borough of Ebensburg, Cambria County, (1) with having, as the duly, qualified and acting mayor in and for the City of Johnstown, unlawfully, wilfully and fraudulently received … said: “The propriety of trying íavo indictments of this'character before the same jury is a matter in which the trial court is invested with discretion and the ruling 'of that court Avill not be reversed unless it is made clearly

Com. v. Franklin, W.

2025 Pa. Super. 229 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2025

The court explained that, because Claitt perjured himself at Appellee’s murder trial, it qualifies as a felony perpetrated “in connection with” a murder of the first degree. Tr. Ct. Op. at 25. … We have stated that “[w]here the evidence that would establish one complaint is distinct from the evidence that would establish the other complaint, the complaints do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence.”

Commonwealth v. Maxwell

2007 Pa. Super. 270 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2007

. ¶ 8 In his brief, Appellant quotes 16B West’s Pa.Prae., Criminal Practice section 31:80 (2006) for the proposition that: ‘Whether in-home electronic monitoring imposed pursuant to a sentence of intermediate punishment qualifies … To now reward Appellant for this failure by giving him credit against the sentence imposed once his probation was revoked would clearly contradict the “decade-long” case law in this area as established by our Supreme Court

Estate of Brumbaugh, J., Appeal of: McClintock, J.

2017 Pa. Super. 287 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2017

Court below err in reversing the decision of the Register of Wills, which had admitted to probate the document at issue at the Last Will and Testament of John Edward Brumbaugh, on the basis it could not so qualify … In sum, the Orphans’ Court’s decision in this matter was based largely on credibility determinations which, based upon our review, are clearly supported in the record. Nalaschi, supra.

Robbins & Seventko Orthopedic Surgeons, Inc. v. Geisenberger

449 Pa. Super. 367 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1996

On May 4, 1983, the Appellants were informed by the IRS that the pension plan had failed to qualify, and that deductions made to it in 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 were disallowed. … A trial court’s order granting summary judgment will not be reversed unless it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. Cochran v.

Commonwealth v. Belknap

2014 Pa. Super. 259 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2014

However, an out-of-court statement is not hearsay when it is introduced for the purpose of establishing the fact that the statement itself was made, rather than for the truth of that statement. Cf. Pa.R.E. 801(c). … First, these statements in question were clearly made for the sole purpose of obtaining “medical treatment or diagnosis” on behalf of Appellant. See Pa.R.E. 803(4)(A).

Koller Concrete, Inc. v. Tube City IMS, LLC

2015 Pa. Super. 92 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2015

One way of creating this inference is by establishing a chain of custody of the item. … Ozol was qualified to testify and an expert; (2) there was an inadequate factual basis for Dr. Ozol’s opinion; and (3) Dr.

Commonwealth v. Winkelman

12 Pa. Super. 497 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1900

particular error of law or material misstatement of the evidence cannot be pointed out, the court will be reviewed on the general effect of the charge, and not upon sentences or paragraphs disconnected from the context which qualifies … of all the cases is that classification, with the view of legislating for either class separately, is essentially unconstitutional, unless a necessity therefor exists, a necessity springing from manifest peculiarities, clearly

In Re: 2014 Allegheny County, Appeal of: WPXI

181 A.3d 349 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2018

The tape had been presented at a preliminary hearing and thus formed “the basis of the magistrate district judge’s legal decision as to whether the charges [were] held for trial, and thus … was clearly the type of material … “If the particular proceeding in question passes these tests of experience and logic, a qualified First Amendment right of public access attaches.” Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 9.

Daniels v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

135 Pa. Super. 450 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1938

An answer to a part of this argument is found by reference to section 59 (a, b, d, e, and f) 20 PS §§1021, 1022, 1024, 1025, 1026, of the same act, as amended, which clearly differentiates between the two classes of guardians … A guardian to whom payment could properly be made under appellee’s policy in the instant case must be a guardian legally qualified to collect the insurance for the minor. See Wuesthoff et al. v. Germania Life Ins.

In Re MG

855 A.2d 68 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2004

preserve and reunify the family need not be made or continue to be made, determine whether the county agency has filed or sought to join a petition to terminate parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified … clearly warrants termination.

Commonwealth v. Besch

418 Pa. Super. 576 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1992

Appellant first argues that the Commonwealth failed to establish that he violated the Corrupt Organizations Act in that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was engaged in an “enterprise”! … Although no specific aggregate amount was testified to, each witness clearly testified to receiving amounts greater than two grams from appellant.

General Finance Co. of Phila. v. Prusky

129 Pa. Super. 355 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1937

The attempted sale of the car on a landlord’s warrant for storage charges was clearly irregular, and was a wrongful conversion by the defendant. … Silver was merely a credit man for plaintiff company, and he was not properly qualified to show any authority on his part to abandon any rights to the automobile.

Hankin v. Hankin

279 Pa. Super. 179 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1980

conclusions from the facts as established.” … Seymour, president and chief executive officer of Jackson-Cross Company, is an experienced and qualified real estate appraiser. 50. Mr.

Commonwealth v. Garzone

2010 Pa. Super. 57 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 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.

In re Smith

2006 Pa. Super. 5 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2006

“[W]here the rules of law on which the [court] relied are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the [court’s] decree.” … We conclude accordingly, that Randall failed in his burden to establish grounds upon which the Orphans’ Court could have credited his defense.