Case law

Gasbarre Products v. Smith, S.

2022 Pa. Super. 21 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2022

The Outline is replete with defined, essential terms that establish the rights and duties of the parties. … or mistake,” except when it is introduced “not to contradict or vary, but to explain the contract, as when something is omitted . . . so as to - 19 - J-A09027-21 qualify

Com. v. Caulk, R.

220 A.3d 1102 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2019

But his death must not and cannot be a reason for immunity from all prosecution in this case. … During closing argument, the prosecutor observed that even though Reaves was dead and was unable to testify, the Commonwealth established through circumstantial evidence that Appellant sold drugs to Reaves.

Commonwealth v. Charleston

2011 Pa. Super. 32 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2011

Appellant’s main argument is that “Pennsylvania clearly bars character evidence in a criminal case.” Brief for Appellant at 24. This is a plainly erroneous claim. … While the admission of this hearsay evidence potentially qualifies under all three theories, we rely only on the first two.

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.

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

In the Interest of: N.C., a minor, Appeal of N.C.

171 A.3d 275 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2017

Having settled that it is the Commonwealth that had the burden of proof, we observe that the Act is silent as to the standard of proof required for establishing that the juvenile is in need of treatment, supervision, or … Nevertheless, this Court held that protection of the public may not be considered until the dispositional phase after the court has adjudicated the juvenile delinquent, as “M.W. clearly delineated only two factors for the

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.

Sorkin, J. v. Sedacca, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2019

During the discussion, [Sedacca] testified that [Sorkin] “clearly stated he could not and would not go lower.” … Commission, 532 A.2d 315 (Pa. 1987), which involved a claim of sex discrimination under the PHRA, our Supreme Court explained: It was never intended, however, that the [McDonnell Douglas] analytical method would immunize

Com. v. Murray, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2017

Murray claims that the identities of Bonner, Johnson, and Green, as well as Bonner’s subsequent arrest for a similar incident, qualify as “new” evidence entitling him to a new trial. We disagree. … “Admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.”

Commonwealth v. Murray

2000 Pa. Super. 84 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2000

Smith was not qualified to render such an opinion. ¶4 The trial court instructed the jury that since appellant’s BAC was above .10% at the time of testing and the test was performed within three hours of driving, the jury … A statute, therefore, will only be found unconstitutional if it “clearly, palpably and plainly” violates the constitution. Barud, at 165 (citations omitted). Appellant argues Section 3731(a.l) is vague and overbroad.

Com. v. Burkett, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2025

Such evidence established probable cause to believe that there was a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code in order to justify the traffic stop. … While he could provide no insight into why or how he made the misstatements in question, he was clearly embarrassed and frustrated with himself for having made them, and did not want to repeat the experience

Commonwealth v. Lukach

2017 Pa. Super. 100 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2017

When the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order: -5- J-S94026-16 we follow a clearly defined standard of review and consider only the evidence from the defendant … - 13 - J-S94026-16 It is the Commonwealth’s burden to establish that a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Commonwealth v.

Stottlemyer v. Stottlemyer

224 Pa. Super. 123 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1973

Furthermore, if a state relies on a given statute to exclude “undesirables”, this provision must clearly fail as it is impermissible to attempt to chill an individual’s constitutional right to travel and settle in the state … “In most cases, it is not more difficult to determine whether one recently arrived in the community has sufficient intent to remain to qualify as a resident than it is to make a similar determination for an older inhabitant

Com. v. Adames, A.

2026 Pa. Super. 9 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2026

The court then qualified Dr. Rocio Nell-Badra (“Dr. Nell”), Appellee’s treating psychiatrist at Norristown State Hospital, as an expert in forensic psychiatry.2 Dr. … Nell explained that Appellee clearly described the development of his fixation on Mr. Crammer as a terrorist that became the focus of his thinking ____________________________________________ 2 Dr.

Commonwealth v. Probst

398 Pa. Super. 44 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1990

Mihalikus clearly explained the theory underlying body heat reduction in deceased individuals. … “pro *57 vided that [ ...] these factors are genuinely in issue and qualify for admission on grounds of relevancy and probative value”).

Commonwealth v. Truitt

169 Pa. Super. 326 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1951

Evidence introduced by the Commonwealth, without objection, established that Local 65, which conducted the picketing at the New Kensington store, was communist dominated and had been thrown out of the C.I.O. for that reason … On the face of the *339 record, accepting counsel’s statement as true, lie clearly was not entitled to have his motion for withdrawal of a juror granted.

Com. v. Anderson, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2026

In order to dispel any lingering doubt as to our intention of engaging in an effort of legal purification, we state clearly that sentencers are under no compulsion to employ checklists or any extended or systematic … Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty.

Lehigh Navigation Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

133 Pa. Super. 67 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1938

Clearly, the proviso which follows in that section does not enlarge the grant of power which precedes it, bnt limits the use and enjoyment of such connection when made. … The proviso qualifies and limits the right granted. See Montgomery v. Martin et al., 294 Pa. 25 , 143 A. 505 .

Commonwealth v. Perri

97 Pa. Super. 78 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1929

committed on criminal charges by other magistrates, and that appellant, for a corrupt consideration and without making any examination as to their solvency or sufficiency as sureties, and without requiring them to justify or qualify … The court said: “The defendant Perri comes before you presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lutjens, C. v. Bayer, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2019

of Reasons ¶¶8-9. ____________________________________________ 3 The trial court also held that Bayer was immune from suit because he was Lutjens’ coworker, appearing to invoke the co-employee immunity provision of Section … In order to establish immunity under the [WCA], the defendant is required to establish that her act or omission occurred while she was in the ‘same employ’ as the plaintiff, that is, in the course of her performance