Case law

Borough of White Haven v. Public Service Commission

80 Pa. Super. 536 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1923

The appellant’s position is clearly and strongly stated in the brief filed and is in substance that the Act of February 27,1865, P. … The Public Service Company legislation was intended to establish a complete system for the regulation, throughout the Commonwealth, of rates to be charged by such companies.

Ranalli v. Rohm and Haas Co.

2009 Pa. Super. 178 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2009

“This limit must be established by the Legislature possessed of all the facts, not by a court deciding one case, however unfortunate.” Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Gray, 4 Pa.Cmwlth. 590 , 288 A.2d 828, 829-30 (1972). … Refusing to apply the exclusivity provisions of the Act, the Court reasoned that certain actions amounting to flagrant misconduct were never intended to fall within the protections and immunities of the Act: Clearly, when

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. MATX, Inc.

703 A.2d 39 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1997

In addition, Paragraph Three contains language clearly stating that its provisions apply to injuries to appellant’s own *44 employees; thus, under the language of paragraph three, appellant’s immunity from liability under … The Burgan court did not object to the use of this language to establish a right of indemnify in a strict liability action.

Commonwealth v. Howard

2000 Pa. Super. 86 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2000

On cross-examination, Appellant’s counsel exposed the immunity arrangement between Mr. Harris and the Commonwealth. … Clearly, Appellant could have raised these allegations on direct appeal, but failed to do so.

Campbell v. Attanasio

2004 Pa. Super. 446 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2004

Voskanian was not qualified to testify regarding the standard of care because he did not practice internal medicine. … Voskanian’s testimony was admissible to establish liability on the part of Dr.

Zimmer v. Mitchell and Ness

253 Pa. Super. 474 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1978

We are compelled to look at the agreement as a whole to determine whether the parties' intent is clearly set forth. … Bradstreet, supra, 134 Pa. 169 , 19 A. 500 ); (4) the burden to establish immunity from liability is upon the party who asserts such immunity ( Dilks v. Flohr Chevrolet, supra, 411 Pa. 436 , 192 A.2d 682 )."

Commonwealth v. Stewart

44 Pa. Super. 620 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1910

If this had been the only averment relative to what took place in court, it would be clearly immaterial as being merely an averment that certain things appeared in the newspaper that the defendant read. … If that had been the question, the defendant would have had a right to examine fully the witnesses called by the commonwealth to establish the alleged confession in order to ascertain whether it was made voluntarily or was

Shamis v. James Moon C/O Geppert Brothers, Inc.

2013 Pa. Super. 313 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2013

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly shows that *969 there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … Shamis’ supervisor; “controlled the work to be done at the job site;” established the work schedules; specified the “clothing to be worn on the job site;” and, had a “weekly safety meeting on the site.” Id. at 9-10.

Turner's Estate

80 Pa. Super. 88 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 1922

Except as Congress permits, a state cannot stand in the way of corporate activity so authorized by Congress; such authority confers immunity from state interference, legislative or judicial: N. P. R. Co. v. … and investments separate and apart from the assets of the companies, and all investments made by the said companies as fiduciaries shall be so designated as that the trust to which such investments shall belong shall be clearly

Commonwealth v. Howe

35 Pa. Super. 554 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1908

Of this instruction the Supreme Court held that even where the defendant’s guilt was clearly established by other evidence it would be error to instruct the jury to disregard that of good character, for it was for them to … Harmon, 199 Pa. 521 , do not qualify these adjudications.

Hassett v. Dafoe

2013 Pa. Super. 213 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2013

In that case, the district court denied the police officers’ motion for summary judgment premised on qualified immunity, finding sufficient evidence in the record that the officers watched and allowed others to beat the plaintiff … The Johnson Court concluded that the order was not appealable as the legal issue, qualified immunity, was not separate from the fact-related legal issues underlying the merits of the plaintiffs claims.

Yacoub v. Lehigh Valley Medical Associates, P.C.

2002 Pa. Super. 251 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2002

Typically, patients presenting with abscesses have had their immune system compromised in some fashion, such as a patient who has had an organ transplant, AIDS, diabetes, or is on renal dialysis. Id. Instantly, Mr. … These allegations can clearly be read as calling into question the hospital’s conduct through its radiology department.

Rumovicz v. Scranton Electric Co.

44 Pa. Super. 582 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1910

Railroad Co., 218 Pa. 444 , has been qualified by the Supreme Court in Milium v. … The evidence wholly failed to establish these facts.

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Nicholson

17 Pa. Super. 188 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1901

where such evidence establishes an oral agreement contemporaneous with the execution of the written, and on the faith of which the instrument was executed : ” 6 P. & L. … The answer to the plaintiff’s sixth point should have been qualified.

Commonwealth v. Storey

49 Pa. Super. 282 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1912

Of course, the evidence would have established nothing against the district attorney; the most that it would have established was that the witness had the conversation with Mr. Rose and reported it to the defendant. … It was not so worded as to be susceptible of being misinterpreted by them to mean that the right referred to in the point rendered the defendant immune from prosecution or conviction for his utterances.

Hart's Appeal

131 Pa. Super. 104 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1938

qualify them to form an intelligent judgment as to its proper valuation: Phila. & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. … In this respect, it acted clearly within its power: Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.’s Tax Assessment (No. 1), 224 Pa. 240, 246 , 73 A. 429 .

Digangi Motor Vehicle Operator License Case

209 Pa. Super. 444 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1967

We are clearly of the opinion that the court below erred, and its order will therefore be reversed. The instant appeal is controlled by our decision in Vivio Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 209 Pa. … To accept Roach’s contention would be to create a privilege and immunity not provided in the law.

Collins v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

426 Pa. Super. 197 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 1993

Clearly, through this amendment Congress sought to save money immediately. Tr. Ct. Opinion at 13. … At most, this qualifying phrase applies to payments not yet made by Medicare for items covered under private insurance.

Davidson v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

152 Pa. Super. 63 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1943

A trial judge should 'afford a party every opportunity properly to identify a document and may even grant a new 'trial when the interest of justice requires it to afford a party a further opportunity to establish the *66 … This was clearly within his power to do. The order is affirmed.

Briggs v. City of Philadelphia

112 Pa. Super. 50 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1933

They are readily distinguished from the present lease, which clearly indicates an occupancy of the premises for more than a month. … Briggs, to establish the actual knowledge of the defective sidewalk by the owner.