Case law

Thomas, L. v. Ott, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2021

Landlord did not argue anything below about the sufficiency of Tenant’s pleadings, nor did he clearly assert that he had no duty to Tenant because he was a landlord out of possession. … contracts must be construed with every intendment against the party who seeks the immunity from liability; [and] (4) the burden to establish immunity from liability is upon the party who asserts such immunity

BouSamra, G. v. Excela Health

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2021

It follows that the trial court’s April 24, 2019 order was not clearly erroneous and would not result in a manifest injustice ____________________________________________ 1I agree with the majority that the certified … Because Appellants may qualify as a “review committee” under Sentence 1, it follows that the trial court’s April 24, 2019 order did not face “almost certain reversal on appellate review” as a “clearly erroneous” order.

State Farm v. Kitko, K.

2020 Pa. Super. 253 · 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

Young, J. v. Lippl, J.

2021 Pa. Super. 56 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2021

Clearly, the basic inquiry in the joinder analysis can be answered in the affirmative. … [] ____________________________________________ 9Attorney Hunt was qualified as an expert in litigation, construction law, AAA arbitration, and jury trials.

Commonwealth v. Hetzel

2003 Pa. Super. 100 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2003

Finally, the manner of death clearly established intent to kill. Commonwealth v. … The record reveals that the case against Bloss was established without Dr.

Krolikowski, M. v. Ethicon Womens' Health

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2020

Moreover, when a litigant presents an expert witness at trial, they must first establish the expert’s qualifications pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. … See Pa.R.E. 702(a)-(c) (to qualify an expert witness, litigant must establish “(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge is beyond that possessed by the average layperson; (b) [that] knowledge

In re Estate of Piet

949 A.2d 886 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2008

Whether the lower court erred in failing to recognize an oral family settlement agreement which was established by clear and unambiguous evidence. C. … Indeed, it seems as though section 6304(a) was drafted with the goal of effectuating testator intent while minimizing the expense of doing so by immunizing certain proceeds held in joint accounts from probate.

In Re Adoption of G.R.L.

2011 Pa. Super. 152 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2011

Parents aver Children’s best interest and welfare would be served by allowing Grandfather to adopt, if he is qualified, because it would promote their bond with their biological family. … Thus while the Act does not reflect a preference for a grandparent’s adoption, it clearly does not exclude grandparents from being considered as prospective adoptive parents.

Hall, A. v. Bartron, J., III

321 A.3d 1047 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2024

Moreover, she argues her monthly net income should have been lower than what the court established. … Whatever the reason for the trial court’s remark, the court clearly did not factor into its analysis the potential rental income from either party. Mother’s seventh issue warrants no relief. C.

Gordon v. Tomei

144 Pa. Super. 449 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1940

This was defendants’ first request for finding of fact, as qualified. … The legal relation of the theatre and defendant association seems clearly that of parties agreeing upon the supply of labor, and the relation of the theatre and the members of the orchestra that of employer and employee.

Krauss, C. v. Trane US Inc.

104 A.3d 556 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2014

Witnesses If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly … Subject to that understanding, only blankets associated with steam turbines qualify as such a material.

Janet D. v. Carros

240 Pa. Super. 291 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1976

Although such a constitutional right appears to be emerging, therefore, its existence has not been definitively established. … Prior to 1973, suits against units of local government were barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity. That doctrine was abolished in Pennsylvania in Ayala v.

Commonwealth v. Hansley

2010 Pa. Super. 81 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2010

Definitions The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: “Eligible offender.” … and logic,” see Ostrosky, supra, (quoting Charles, supra), we recognize what the legislature so forcefully implied; offenders sentenced under § 7508(a)(3)(i), (ii), are eligible for RRRI program placement provided they qualify

McDermott v. Biddle

436 Pa. Super. 94 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1994

.” *102 “McDermott said in a recent interview that his son was well-qualified for the job. ‘I don’t see why he should be denied just because he had the good fortune to be my son,’ McDermott said.” … Finally, the court emphasized that neither evidence of falsity alone or of ill will or a desire to do harm to the plaintiff were sufficient to establish malice. Id.

Com. v. Leap, J.

2019 Pa. Super. 323 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2019

The Commonwealth next presented testimony from Carol Haupt, who was qualified to testify as an expert in the dynamics of sexual violence, victim responses to sexual violence, and the impact of sexual violence on victims … “Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a material fact.”

Merchants Parcel Delivery, Inc. v. Pa. Public Utility Commission

150 Pa. Super. 120 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1941

Merchants Parcel Delivery, Inc. conducts a business principally in distribution from retail stores to their customers, established in 1883. … A permit shall be issued by the commission to any qualified applicant therefor authorizing in whole or in part the service covered by the application, if it appears from the application, or from any hearing held thereon,

Krishnan v. Cutler Group, Inc.

171 A.3d 856 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2017

Thereafter, the court established a firm trial date of October 27, 2014. 61. … Wheatley to provide expert testimony when he was called as a fact witness and never qualified as an expert?

Com. v. Pepe, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2026

Clearly, the information in a motion filed in 2004 would not qualify for a timeliness exception at this time. Pepe further relies upon the Commonwealth’s brief filed in this Court in 2010. … This information was known to Pepe in 2010 and cannot now establish a timeliness exception.

Russ Soda Fountain Co. v. Victor Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

125 Pa. Super. 452 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 11, 1936

There is nothing in that case which overrules or in any manner qualifies what we said in Willys-Overland, Inc. v. Stry, 76 Pa. Superior Ct. 315, 318 . … Three years were consumed in getting the case ready for trial and the issues to be tried clearly determined.

In Re: J.C.B., Appeal of: J.C.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2026

In so doing, to expend principal, without further review of the court, only as needed to qualify for medical assistance long-term care. … -6- J-A08047-26 law on which the court relied are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court’s decree.