Case law

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.

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.

Estate of C.W.

433 Pa. Super. 167 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1994

Although C.W. has never been pregnant, all the experts qualified to express an opinion on this subject agreed that there was no reason to believe that C.W. was incapable of reproduction. … Clearly there does not need to be a male residing in C.W.'s CLA for a man to be present there.

In Re:Estate of Krasinski, S. Appeal of:Krasinski

188 A.3d 461 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 2018

The Stricker Court further determined the order did not qualify as a collateral order appealable pursuant to Rule 313. Therefore, the order of this Court quashing the appeal was affirmed. … A fact is indisputable if it is so well established as to be a matter of common knowledge.

Rissi v. Cappella

2007 Pa. Super. 45 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2007

Soon thereafter Rissi learned that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) had started a new program where certain areas would be designated as “resorts” and a limited number of licenses would be issued to qualifying … Initially, *139 we note that the document was clearly hearsay.

Johnson, K. v. Agate Construction Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2022

liability” standard at any time during trial, its current argument is clearly waived. … [Further], the denial of summary judgment did not, as [Appellant] claims, “reject” statutory employer immunity or “establish” the validity of Plaintiff’s claim. Brief for Appellant, p. 54.

Com. v. Aumick, J.

2022 Pa. Super. 33 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2022

While introduced as part of the record, other than establishing that the statutory preconditions were satisfied, it has no evidentiary value. … Muscari’s opinion, the Commonwealth failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Aumick qualifies as an SVP.

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

221 A.3d 221 · 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

In the Interest of: H.K., a minor, Appeal of: R.L.

2017 Pa. Super. 124 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2017

To establish a direct interest, the party “must show causation of the harm to his interest by the matter of which he complains.” Id. … To establish that interest is immediate, the party must show a “sufficiently close causal connection between the challenged action and the asserted injury to qualify the interest as „immediate‟ rather than „remote.‟” Id.

Com. v. Barger, R.

325 A.3d 858 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2024

Acknowledging the potential impact of its decision in invalidating a statute that contained provisions establishing registration requirements for sexual offenders, the Neiman Court stayed its decision for ninety (90) days … Appellant, who committed his qualifying offenses before December 20, 2012, argues that Subchapter I of SORNA cannot be retroactively applied to him as such a designation would be violative of ex post facto prohibitions.

Com. v. Gonzalez, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2015

Nor am I willing to assume that effective counsel could not have possibly found any claim or argument that qualified for an exception from the time-bar. … Our Supreme Court has clearly provided that this is not the way the system is designed to operate.

McCarthy v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

2001 Pa. Super. 106 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2001

Reilly clearly limits the intermediate appellate and trial courts’ authority to impose punishments for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. ¶ 10 In the instant case, Keller’s alleged violation of Pa.R.P.C. 4.2 … Moreover, we find no precedent to support the importation of this definition. ¶ 12 The key information needed by the trial court to determine if an employee qualifies for protection from ex parte communication with opposing

Bailey v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.

409 Pa. Super. 374 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1991

The law is established in this Commonwealth as to each of the queries posed by Penelec. … It is unclear from the trial testimony whether a wire, suspended between two towers that are implanted in the ground, qualifies as an object on the ground. R. 862a-870a.

Commonwealth v. Mickens

409 Pa. Super. 266 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1991

A qualified privilege exists which “permits the Commonwealth ‘to refrain from disclosing the identity of an informer’ and ‘limits the prosecution’s duty to make available to the defense the names and whereabouts of all material … Counsel clearly was not ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s explanation of the law pertaining to reasonable doubt.

Cassell's Estate

133 Pa. Super. 512 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1938

The italicized portion of this quotation clearly implies that the testator’s name must be signed to the document before he placed his mark thereon, for it speaks of “the document signed in his name when he placed his mark … If it is to be qualified or modified in any way it must be by the Supreme Court itself. The second and third assignments of error are sustained.

Allegheny County Housing Authority v. Johnson

2006 Pa. Super. 258 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2006

override established principles of law and other residents’ rights. … The record clearly shows that Appellee repeatedly disrupted other residents’ quiet enjoyment of their accommodations.

Commonwealth v. Stahley

201 A.3d 200 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2018

His testimony, however, also included - 14 - J-A18016-18 his observations that Appellant communicated clearly during Mr. … For these reasons, we conclude Batts II announced no substantive rule qualifying for retroactive application to cases pending on collateral review.

Frontier Leasing Corp. v. Shah

2007 Pa. Super. 225 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2007

GMC, 522 U.S. 222, 233 , 118 S.Ct. 657 , 139 L.Ed.2d 580 (1998) (“A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for … Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1189 (5th Cir.1985). ¶ 11 Personal jurisdiction can be established by consent of the parties; when such consent is established, the famous “minimum contacts” framework developed by the United States

J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Insurance

372 Pa. Super. 575 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 1988

contrast, it is beyond contention as well that a determination in any action may affect individuals in other actions who are similarly situated, then presently or in the future, either by way of collateral estoppel or by establishing … divested the court of jurisdiction as to the first action involving Smith. 1 At best, *588 it would have created a situation where permissive joinder might be appropriate. 2 Furthermore, the troubling passage from Vale is qualified

PA. INSURANCE DEPT. v. Phila.

196 Pa. Super. 221 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1961

Superior Ct. 554, 559 , 83 A. 2d 386 (1951). *237 Where an administrative agency is clothed with discretion in the discharge of its duty, the court will not interfere unless the record clearly establishes that there has been … It is true that the mere possession of discretionary power by an administrative body does not make it wholly immune from judicial review, but the scope of that review is limited to the determination of whether there has been