Case law

Rm v. Js

20 A.3d 496 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 2011

Thus, Father is correct that Maternal Grandmother does not qualify as "a person acting as a parent." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5402. Nonetheless, relying on the holding in Wagner v. … See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1926 ("No statute shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly.").

Generette v. Donegal Mutual Insurance

2005 Pa. Super. 314 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2005

Yet, in reviewing the grant of summary judgment, we should reverse the trial court only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. Gutteridge v. A.P. … Just as the creation of stacking in subsection (a) does not utilize “inter-policy stacking” or “intra-policy stacking” labels, neither is the waiver option qualified as to any type of stacking. Id. at 12.

Smith v. Exxon Corp.

436 Pa. Super. 221 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 1994

In construing the terms of the Dealers Agreement in its entirety, the Court concluded that the relationship was clearly and convincingly one of an independent contractee-contractor rather than an employer-employee. … Appellant asserts, however, that the Distributor Agreement imposes the following duties upon Oliver Oil thus giving Exxon control over Oliver Oil’s operation of the mini-mart: 1) Oliver Oil would provide qualified and neatly

Com. v. Edwards, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2021

They haven’t established that this is an excited utterance. At this point, this is just hearsay. … Edwards’ argument that too much time had elapsed for at least some of the statements to qualify as excited utterances lacks merit.

Oster, R. v. Serfass Const. Company, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2022

Summary judgment is only appropriate where the record clearly shows that no genuine issue of material fact exists and, as a result, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. … Worthington Associates, Inc., 89 A.3d 643, 645 (Pa. 2014) (reinforcing the established doctrine of statutory employer immunity).

Langston v. National Media Corp.

420 Pa. Super. 611 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1992

Hovey, 726 F.2d 1286 , 1291-92 (8th Cir.1984) (“where the Arbitration Act is applicable and no qualifying contractual language has been alleged, the district court errs in granting injunctive relief’); Korn v. … The trial court found that appellee’s right to equitable relief was clearly provided for in the employment contract with MAI.

Com. v. Greene, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2021

However, clearly, and absolutely, without doubt, these three witnesses1 have an independent basis for their identifications of this [Appellant]. … Robertson replied that he had been granted immunity for selling the victim marijuana on camera immediately prior to the homicide. Id.

Estate of CW

433 Pa. Super. 167 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1994

Although C.W. has never been pregnant, all the experts qualified to express an opinion on this subject agreed that there was no reason to believe that C.W. was incapable of reproduction. … Clearly there does not need to be a male residing in C.W.'s CLA for a man to be present there.

Commonwealth v. Henderson

444 Pa. Super. 170 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 1995

Also, Chief Mango testified regarding the events that transpired on the evening of February 8, 1993 in order to establish a complete record for appeal. … The first comprehensive highway safety program, The North Central Highway Safety Network, was established in 1989. Id. at 6.

In Re Adoption of S.B.

2009 Pa. Super. 162 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2009

. ¶ 9 The Adoption Act does not provide examples of what qualifies as “cause shown” under section 2905(a). … Only if the adoptee’s need for the information clearly outweighs the considerations behind the statute may the records be unsealed. In re Long, 745 A.2d at 675 (footnote and emphasis added).

In Re Estate of Elkins

32 A.3d 768 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2011

For example, some of the funds underwrote a federally-qualified health center providing clinical care to the community in the Chinatown section of Philadelphia. … Elkins contemplated when he established the Hahnemann Hospital trust. Based upon Mr.

Com. v. Segraves, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2016

However, it concludes that Appellee could not establish actual prejudice despite the fact that the first trial in this matter resulted in a mistrial on all but one charge leveled against Appellee and the second jury was … This evidence, though more than sufficient to warrant a conviction, hardly qualifies as overwhelming evidence of Appellee’s guilt.

Kurian ex rel. Kurian v. Anisman

2004 Pa. Super. 165 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2004

Expert testimony is clearly needed in this case and appellants’ argument to the contrary is meritless. 2. Whether Dr. Chin needed to he identified as an expert. ¶ 14 Appellants’ second contention is that Dr. … Chin’s expert report takes over from there and establishes the rest of the elements.

Com. v. Fuentes, J.

272 A.3d 511 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2022

Fuentes also utilizes his own testimony to establish that “[t]here was never a time when [he] was alone with [the victim].” Id., at 15 (citation to the record omitted). … Clearly, the nature and severity of the crimes justify the legislature's rationally based minimum sentence. 610 A.2d 1058, 1060 (Pa. Super. 1992) citation omitted).

Commonwealth v. Pitts

1999 Pa. Super. 247 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1999

Clearly, Appellee was in custody so as to trigger his right to Miranda warnings. See Commonwealth v. … That these facts are repeatedly mentioned by the suppression court and the majority is troubling, as they are clearly of no analytical consequence.

Adams, D. v. Rising Sun Med. Ctr.

257 A.3d 26 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2020

When considering such a challenge, our standard of review is whether the trial court clearly and palpably committed an error of law that controlled the outcome of the case or constituted an abuse … Assuming that a proper foundation can be laid establishing that Dr.

Com. v. Haffey, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2025

In the absence of the above, Appellant argues, the Commonwealth failed to establish the admissibility of the report and certificate. Id. … The evidence adduced at trial established that both troopers are qualified to operate the chemical breath test device used in this case.

Keystone Printed Specialties Co. v. Fischer

287 Pa. Super. 371 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 1981

Since the agreement purportedly was made between Keystone and appellant’s decedent, who was a stockholder of Keystone, and since Frances argues that Keystone’s corporate secretary should not have been allowed (as he was) to qualify … The Agreement, clearly, does not provide for the payment of any certain amount of money to the estate. Article 2 thereof states only that Keystone will buy the stock “for the entire proceeds of the insurance policy.”

Berdecia-Cortes, J. v. Rogers, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2014

Moreover, the - 12 - J-A25011-14 trial court announced its ruling in the presence of the jury and repeated it thereafter in ruling on subsequent objections – clearly communicating … He’s not qualified as an expert in this area so he can’t testify to that. Id. at 85-86.

Watson v. American Home Assurance Co.

454 Pa. Super. 293 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1996

To further support its position, American Home presented appellant’s medical records to establish that appellant had a *303 lengthy history of diabetes. … However, “state laws of insurance policy interpretation do not qualify for the ‘savings clause’ exception and are preempted. The interpretation of ERISA insurance polices is governed by a uniform federal common law.”