Case law

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 .

Murphy v. McDermott

2009 Pa. Super. 151 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2009

(citations omitted). ¶ 14 This Court stated clearly the obligation of parents regarding the education of their children in Francis v. Francis, 358 Pa.Super. 391 , 517 A.2d 997 (1986) as follows. … Therefore, the qualifier "prior to separation” would not apply.

McAleer, M. & E. v. Geisinger Med. Ctr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2024

Isaac Raijman, was not qualified to opine on the standard of care applicable to Dr. Buzas. … Raijman was not qualified to establish that the care and treatment provided fell short of the required standard of care. On appeal, Appellants raise the following issues: 1.

Charlton, A. v. Troy, S.

2020 Pa. Super. 170 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2020

That error was compounded when counsel for the Charltons was allowed to read in excerpts from the text, which were clearly hearsay, as substantive evidence. … The defense repeatedly objected to this practice, but the trial court permitted this clearly prohibited use of a publication as substantive evidence.

Com. v. Solomon, P.

247 A.3d 1163 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2021

Armstrong was qualified to offer expert testimony as to the value of the coins at issue. See Appellant’s substituted reply brief at 4-5. … He has established that our legislature clearly knew how to provide a limited definition of the value of stolen property, and it could have specified its applicability to § 1106 if it wanted to constrain a sentencing court

Com. v. Caleb, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2016

Nevertheless, we recognized the following principles: Due process of law guarantees respect for those personal immunities which are ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to … Nevertheless, Wolfe is clearly the law of this Commonwealth at the moment, and must therefore be dutifully applied by this Court.

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

Commonwealth v. Jackson

401 Pa. Super. 258 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1991

Finally, it is necessary to establish the precise manner in which counsel’s omission or commission prejudiced appellant. … Moreover, Attorney Hobson clearly chose not to bring in his own medical expert, for strategic reasons, at trial. In Mr. Hobson’s own exact words, And I am aware that reasonable doubt in a case is not all doubt.

Driscoll, R. v. Arena, J.

213 A.3d 253 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2019

The parties have not made any persuasive showing that this Court qualifies under the statute. Thus, removal to this Court is not permitted.” Id. … Finally, the contract clearly states that the borrower intends “this to be a sealed instrument….”

Commonwealth v. Markowitz

2011 Pa. Super. 184 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2011

These principles were clearly articulated in Commonwealth v. Stokes, 426 Pa. 265 , 232 A.2d 193 (1967). In Stokes , the defendant pled guilty to murder and alleged that he was denied his right to appeal. … Pursell, 555 Pa. 233 , 724 A.2d 293, 302 (1999) ("We will not require courts considering PCRA petitions to struggle through the pro se filings of defendants when qualified counsel represent those defendants.”); see also Commonwealth

Kane v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

2003 Pa. Super. 502 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2003

Where qualifying language is absent and an insured is promised “actual cash value,” the insured is entitled to the cost to repair or replace the damaged property. … In each of these policies, there is qualifying language indicating that “actual cash value” will be the proffered compensation where the insured does not repair or replace the damage.

Sunbeam Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

1999 Pa. Super. 261 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1999

The pollution exclusion is qualified, however, in that it states that coverage will be provided "if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental." ¶ 4 The pollution exclusion first was approved for … Since sustaining the demurrer results in a denial of the pleader's claim or dismissal of his suit, a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only in cases that clearly and without a doubt fail

Commonwealth v. West

270 Pa. Super. 301 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1979

Consequently, the integrity of the fact finding process was insulated from any predispositions held by the trial judge, who therefore was properly qualified to conduct appellant's trial. Commonwealth v. … In Hall we held that a Rule 1100 claim was not preserved since it was presented orally in a cursory manner and not in writing as Rule 306 clearly required.

Com. v. Wilson, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2018

Specifically, he asserts that the proffer “corroborated statements by [his] alleged co-conspirators, establish[ed] his presence at the scene, connect[ed] him with the Black P-Stone gang, and establish[ed] a motive for … We first note that Harrigan’s testimony hardly amounted to her “clearly witness[ing Wilson] commit[] the drive by shooting.” Id.

Commonwealth v. Lambert

2000 Pa. Super. 396 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2000

Accordingly, Appellant’s PCRA petition is deficient in this regard and does not serve to qualify her claims for PCRA relief. … Essentially, Appellant argues that both of her medical experts were more qualified.

Sevast v. Kakouras

2003 Pa. Super. 508 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 26, 2003

The rule provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (b) The garnishee in the answer under “new matter” may include (1) the defenses of the immunity or exemption of property; (2) any defense or counterclaim which the garnishee … The issue presented in the previous actions clearly concerned Mr. Kakouras’s interest in the property and his rights vis-a-vis the terminated sales agreement.

Com. v. Hendricks, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2025

Brightbill, who the trial court qualified as an expert in forensic interviewing; and Officer Johnson. … The record reflects that at trial, the court qualified Ms. Brightbill as an expert in forensic interviewing. N.T., 4/5/2022, at 45.

Hoffman, R. v. Joseph Dugan, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2023

In both Walsh and Alexander, the negligence claims filed by plaintiffs were against local agencies, which usually enjoy governmental immunity. … Additionally: [T]o recover for the loss of wages, a plaintiff must establish a wage loss that is the result of the negligence of the - 10 - J-S07033-23

Murray, K. v. American LaFrance,LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2018

Appellants’ pleading failed to establish the grounds for Pennsylvania to exercise personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state Appellee. … Fundamentally, that statement is an accurate reiteration of established law. Importantly, however, the issue is not whether Daimler precludes jurisdiction by consent; clearly it does not.

Commonwealth v. Leet

401 Pa. Super. 490 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1991

In some states, the establishment of a police department resulted in an erosion of the office of sheriff. … The main point of the exclusionary rule is to punish the state, which is otherwise immune from liability for an actionable detention.