Case law

Weber v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.

2005 Pa. Super. 192 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2005

Latrobe Printing & Publ’g Co., 762 A.2d 758 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 567 Pa. 725 , 786 A.2d 988 (2001). 3 Under this privilege, media defendants have qualified immunity from defamation liability when they report on … “However, this qualified immunity is forfeited if the publisher steps out of the scope of the privilege or abuses the ‘occasion.’ This can be done by exaggerated additions, or embellishments to the account.”

Commonwealth v. Munchinski

401 Pa. Super. 300 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1990

The Attorney General was not contacted and the district attorney refused to grant immunity. The court, therefore, was correct in denying immunity. … The district attorney refused to grant immunity because Scaglione had direct appeals and collateral appeals available to him and, therefore, any grant of immunity would prejudice the Commonwealth’s case against him.

Neidert, Z. v. Charlie, A.

2016 Pa. Super. 138 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2016

In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it granted Appellee’s motion for a compulsory nonsuit on the theory that he could not establish a cause of action under the dual capacity doctrine. … However, a later motion should not be entertained or granted when a motion of the same kind has previously been denied, unless intervening changes in the facts or the law clearly

Ciarrocca v. Campbell

282 Pa. Super. 60 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1980

Policino, supra, does not change the doctrine of interspousal immunity. In fact, the Supreme Court in Policino concluded that the defense of interspousal immunity could be waived. … intended to be avoided vis-a-vis the interspousal immunity statute.

Krell v. Silver

2003 Pa. Super. 27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2003

Messick, 799 A.2d 793 (Pa.Super.2002), this Court held that a movant must establish three factors in order to have a judgment of non pros opened. … Appellant suffers from Nephrotic Syndrome, which is an auto-immune disorder affecting the kidneys. . Adopted November 19, 1991, effective January 1, 1992. Amended December 2, 1994, effective July 1, 1995. .

Commonwealth v. Hall

2005 Pa. Super. 33 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2005

. ¶ 34 Here, the corroborating circumstances “clearly indicate the [unjtrustwor-thiness of the statement.” … Anderson’s immunity agreement.

Reuben v. O'BRIEN

299 Pa. Super. 372 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 1982

It is a limitation which qualifies a substantive right by a condition of the time within which an action can be maintained. See Kovachick v. … The action against District Justice O’Brien was dismissed because of judicial immunity, and no appeal, was taken.

Commonwealth v. Ramos

2007 Pa. Super. 76 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2007

In order to qualify for that position, he had to undergo two years of extensive training from qualified firearms and tool marks examiners. In further elaborating upon his qualifications, Mr. … Such a concept would be at variance with the well established principle of the law of evidence that a presumption shifts not only the burden of proof, but also shifts the burden of coming forward with the evidence to establish

Com. v. Markun, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2017

It indicates that a “person may not be charged and shall be immune from prosecution” for, inter alia, possession of a controlled substance if the person establishes that certain conditions are met. 35 P.S. § 780-113.7 … The record clearly establishes the facts necessary for application of § 780-113.7.

Meads Et Ux. v. Rutter

122 Pa. Super. 64 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1936

Under the evidence offered by the plaintiffs, Meads, the driver of the car, was clearly guilty of contributory negligence. … Schmerin, supra, to support the contention that the plaintiffs’ evidence was negative and insufficient to establish the absence of a tail-light.

Green v. Mizner

692 A.2d 169 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1997

According to Appellant, Pennsylvania law clearly states that if a challenged statement can be reasonably construed as defamatory, a complainant has established a prima facie case and is entitled to proceed to a jury on the … Pennsylvania law affords absolute immunity for defamatory statements contained in pleadings if they are relevant to the proceedings in which they are made. Oweida v.

Commonwealth v. Kauffman

413 Pa. Super. 527 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1992

The trial court held that the prosecutor’s file was not immune from discovery, and the Commonwealth, by special allowance, appealed. … Such a result clearly was not contemplated by *534 the legislature when it enacted the Right to Know Law.

Commonwealth v. Bailey, Banks & Biddle Co.

20 Pa. Super. 210 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1902

Further, the phraseology of the mercantile license acts *216 which preceded the act of 1899, did not more clearly evince an intent to include corporations than does that act. … construction, a definite meaning and application in a previous statute on the same subject, they are generally supposed to be used in the same sense, and in the construction of the later act, regard should be had to the known and established

Reis v. Phillips Products Co.

234 Pa. Super. 508 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1975

Plan for a limited period of time which under the then current and presently current Regulations establishes that said Plan is not a permanent and continuing plan and, therefore, would no longer qualify as a qualified plan … The pleadings themselves do not clearly evidence liability. . Another difficulty with the lower court’s order involves that amount of damages awarded.

McClain v. Welker

2000 Pa. Super. 299 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2000

[W]e may only reverse upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. … Lidsky’s testimony, appellants could not establish the causation element of their prima facie case. Therefore, had the trial court properly refused to qualify Dr.

Burlingame v. Paul & Suzanna M. Dagostin, Douglas Zehner, & Country View Family Farms, LLC

183 A.3d 462 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2018

A portion of the amendment was designed to immunize farmers who sought to expand or substantially change their operations from nuisance suits. … As such, the farmer is provided with immediate immunity from suit and the deterrent to investment is removed. Jennifer L.

Drumgoole v. Lyle

30 Pa. Super. 463 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1906

Possession usually follows title and an *467 affirmation of absolute ownership or a qualified property with the circumstances of such qualified proprietorship would ordinarily be sufficient to present a prima facie case in … If he set forth an absolute or qualified property and the facts upon which his title is based, the defendant must reply by averment of matters sufficient to establish his title or to justify his possession.

Hennessy v. Santiago

708 A.2d 1269 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1998

The Supreme Court held that the school did not qualify as a state actor. … Clearly, if Appellant can prove sufficient facts to establish a conspiracy of Santiago and Albert to fire her, she can show a close nexus between Santiago’s decision to terminate her employment and Albert’s alleged involvement

Commonwealth. v. Green

232 Pa. Super. 134 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1975

It remains a single distinctive occurrence, a comprehensive series of acts so as to qualify as a single criminal episode. In Commonwealth v. Beam, 227 Pa. … In effect, defendant [here] asked for serialized prosecutions in order to gain immunity from the remaining charge.

Com. v. Cosby Jr., W.

224 A.3d 372 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2019

Phillips was clearly mistaken in that regard, as immunity from prosecution can only be obtained by a court order pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947. … The instant case is clearly disanalogous to Ess.