Case law

Com. v. Haahs, T.

2022 Pa. Super. 217 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2022

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Conversely, we also reject the Commonwealth’s suggestion that the phrase “sexual or other intimate parts” constitutes any body part, as the qualifiers “sexual” and “intimate” plainly narrow the focus.

Andrew v. CUNA Brokerage Services, Inc.

2009 Pa. Super. 98 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 2009

an arbitrator in a nonjudicial arbitration which is not subject to statutory arbitration or to a similar statute regulating nonjudicial arbitration proceedings is binding and may not be vacated or modified unless it is clearly … “The appellant bears the burden to establish both the underlying irregularity and the resulting inequity by clear, precise, and indubitable evidence.” McKenna v.

Carpinet v. Mitchell

2004 Pa. Super. 197 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 2004

We find that categories (a), (c), and (e) of the interrogatory are clearly duplicative. … Mitchell summarily argued that the question ipso facto established prejudice. We disagree.

Commonwealth v. Bowers

2011 Pa. Super. 135 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2011

A judge may consider unadjudicated arrests in sentencing a defendant, so long as the arrests are not regarded as establishing criminal conduct, and even arrests that result in acquittals, if the judge is aware of the acquittal … This clearly reflects that the General Assembly, in drafting Section 3806(b), was less concerned with the underlying guilt or innocence of a DUI arrestee accepting ARD or other form of preliminary disposition, and more concerned

Commonwealth v. Dean

2008 Pa. Super. 3 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2008

. ¶ 5 Preliminarily, we note that, “A hotel room can clearly be the object of Fourth Amendment protection as much as a home or an office.” Hoffa v. … In the course of doing so, the high Court wrote, as herein relevant: If the presence of odors is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know the odor, and it is one sufficiently distinctive

Yonah Building & Loan Ass'n Case

133 Pa. Super. 376 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1938

While, in a qualified sense, withdrawing stockholders may be considered creditors of the association, their rights, as against those with whom they have been associated, are very different from those of general creditors … On trial, without such showing, the defense would clearly amount to nothing, for the plaintiff could not be charged with losses which occurred after he ceased to be a member of the company, and we must take it for granted

Toppy, E. v. Passage Bio, Inc

285 A.3d 672 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2022

Super. 1990) (trial court erred by sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing complaint by sua sponte raising immunity issue that defendant did not raise; “the preliminary objections raised only the questions regarding … Since the stock shares qualify as wages, Appellant states a valid claim under the WPCL due to Appellee’s failure to issue them.

In Re Barnes Foundation

443 Pa. Super. 369 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1995

The record, as relevant to the first appeal, establishes that appellant, a student and trustee ad litem 2 of the Foundation, was suspended from course and visitation privileges at the Foundation for a period totalling three … Only a member of the corporation itself or someone having a special interest therein or the Commonwealth, acting through the Attorney General, is qualified to bring an action of such nature---The protection of the public

Espenshade v. Espenshade

1999 Pa. Super. 108 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 1999

The evidence here, as accepted by the trial court sitting as fact-finder, clearly established that appellant manifested the intent to disregard the validity of the addendum. … Powell, 527 Pa. 288 , 590 A.2d 1240 , 1244 n. 8 (1991) (holding that abuse of discretion "means the clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment - one [that is] clearly against logic and effect of such facts as are presented

State Farm v. Kitko, K.

241 A.3d 648 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2020

] § 3323 (relating to decree of court) and grounds have been established as provided in 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 3323(g). (b) General rule. … contends that the policy, in the instant case, required the designation of Appellant as the primary beneficiary of the policy to be in writing and that the alleged verbal conversation Decedent had with the agent did not qualify

Estate of Sacchetti v. Appeal of Sacchetti

2015 Pa. Super. 240 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2015

In addition, even if we viewed the statute as permitting a marriage to arise based upon how the parties envisioned their marriage would operate, the evidence herein clearly established that this result did not occur in … The evidence clearly established that Mario did not know that Ms. Yau was married to Mr. Kai when he married her. In addition, Ms.

Commonwealth v. Griffin

453 Pa. Super. 657 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1996

This rule stems from the absence of proof inherent in a dying declaration: a victim who makes a statement that qualifies as a dying declaration is a fortiori not available to describe in court what observations and inferences … Clearly, a possible reason appellant stopped the van and Miller ran away was the belief, as expressed by the appellant and Jamal Sanders, that Miller was going to the police station to report on the appellant and the others

Com. v. Pacheco, D.

2020 Pa. Super. 14 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2020

Super. 2011) (holding that it is well-established that an appellant must properly specify in his concise statement the error to be addressed on appeal). … Kirkland was qualified, he could testify generally about the cartels, but could not testify specifically to Pacheco’s case. See id. at 222; see also Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/18, at 17.

Com. v. Hall, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2023

According to Appellant, he was clearly in police custody at the time when the police questioned him about the combination to the safe. … -9- J-S34035-23 THE COURT: Well, [Appellant] clearly didn’t have to be Mirandized.

Commonwealth v. Ballard

430 Pa. Super. 109 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 1993

Because hearsay is regarded as unreliable, “[i]t is well settled in our law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless it qualifies under one of the recognized exceptions to that rule.” Commonwealth v. … Because of the trial court’s obvious ambivalence concerning the statement’s evidentiary purpose, we cannot assume that the jury clearly understood that the statement was sought to be admitted only for the limited purpose

Blair v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

152 Pa. Super. 555 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1943

established that the taxes were assessed on seated land and the sale was had for unpaid taxes on unseated land. … William Friedline fixed the values at $25,800 before and at $250 after the appropriation; but on cross-examination qualified his testimony by setting the fair market value of the property as a whole, before the taking, at

Engstrom v. Bayer Corp.

2004 Pa. Super. 223 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2004

However, as noted above, jurisprudence in this Commonwealth, as expressed in decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and this Court has clearly identified the matters constituting the … The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas mass tort program, instituted in 1992, established standardized case management procedures and scheduling to address expeditiously the explosion of asbestos litigation which occurred

Com. v. Young, B.

287 A.3d 907 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2022

Young clearly raised the issue of overbreadth in his own omnibus pre- trial motion. … The affidavit of probable cause attached to the application, however, clearly evinced that police were only investigating alleged law- breaking in Apartment One.

Shober, R.B. v. St. Joseph Medical Center

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2020

Pennsylvania Hosp., 417 Pa. 486, 208 A. 2d 193 (1965), discarding the immunity from liability in tort previously enjoyed by public hospitals. … Thus, any willingness to characterize a head surgeon as the “captain of the ship” in order to financially restore the patient should be clearly negated in light of the Flagiello opinions.

Commonwealth v. Orie

2014 Pa. Super. 44 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2014

This established that they were in their altered form when in the possession of [Orie]. … The evidence submitted establishes that [Orie] retained private counsel on December 9, 2009.