Case law

Commonwealth v. Antico

146 Pa. Super. 293 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 1941

The joint assent of minds necessary to establish a conspiracy may be inferred from such acts. Com. v. Rhey, 140 Pa. Superior Ct. 340 , 14 A. 2d 192 . … It contends that the acts and conduct of the defendants and attending circumstances clearly and convincingly establish by reasonable inference the existence of a corrupt mutual undertaking amounting to a criminal conspiracy

Cranshaw Construction Inc. v. Ghrist

290 Pa. Super. 286 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 1981

We find that Cranshaw is immune and therefore reversed the order. Section 203 [2] of the Workmen's Compensation Act establishes the requisites of statutory employer status in negligence actions. … In order to find refuge with section 481, Appellant must establish that it was Appellee Ghrist's employer, since it obviously cannot come within any other of the therein enumerated categories granted immunity from liability

Commonwealth v. Beiler

168 Pa. Super. 462 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1951

Nor have they attended private or denominational schools or received instruction from qualified tutors. … First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .”

Commonwealth v. Carpenter

2008 Pa. Super. 186 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2008

The expert testimony of a witness qualified in the field of drug distribution, coupled with the presence of drug paraphernalia, is sufficient to establish intent to deliver. … The evidence was clearly sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Carpenter had the intent to deliver. ¶ 14 The other part of the issue Carpenter raises on appeal is his claim that the Commonwealth failed to prove

Erschen v. Pennsylvania Independent Oil Co.

259 Pa. Super. 474 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1978

Appellants asked several questions of Trooper Marchetti in an effort to establish his expertise. … In the case at bar, Trooper Marchetti clearly testified that he had no formal instruction or on-the-job training in the origin of gas explosions.

Stanka v. Shamokin Borough

66 Pa. Super. 553 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1917

But a municipality is not required to use material that will secure to the trav *556 eling public immunity from injury. … We are not inclined to increase municipal burdens by adding to or enlarging the established rule; established at least so far as concerns our own decisions.

Detwiler v. Brumbaugh

441 Pa. Super. 110 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1995

The Board argued that even though it was not a licensee, it was immune from third party liability under Section 4-497. … Traditionally, liability is established after a finding is made that a duty existed, a breach of that duty occurred and the resulting harm was proximately caused by the breach. Fennell v.

In the Interest of H. B.

293 Pa. Super. 109 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1981

The testimony before the master revealed additionally that the child had not received certain unspecified immunizations. … The present record, however, does not clearly and convincingly establish that proper parental care or control was not immediately available. In re A. E.

Harr, SEC. of Bkg. v. Boucher

142 Pa. Super. 114 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 1940

“In our decisions referring to the subject, we have necessarily observed and adhered to the classification so established. … Granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive privilege or immunity......”. (Italics supplied).

Stitzinger v. Stitzinger Lumber Co.

187 Pa. Super. 453 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 1958

These principles are firmly established in the law upon considerations of public policy and sound reason. … Under the entireties theory of property held by husband and wife, the husband clearly should be precluded from any recovery for his own act of negligence.

Hartman Co. v. Hyman

87 Pa. Super. 358 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1925

Justification is attempted to be established on the ground that they amounted to ¡a privileged communication. … For the reasons stated, we are constrained to hold that the learned trial judge properly instructed the jury that there was no qualified privilege in the case.

G&G Investors, LLC v. Phillips Simmons Real Estate Holdings, LLC

183 A.3d 472 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2018

This court finding that any such inspection should not be allowed until after a hearing and Petitioner's has established, through testimony and/or evidence, that the Property qualifies for relief under Act 135, deferred … However, Petitioner did not establish a third criteria as required.

Conner v. Quality Coach, Inc.

1999 Pa. Super. 21 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1999

It is hornbook law that the immunity from suit of the sovereign state does not extend to independent contractors doing work for the state. … Under our revised formulation, to gain immunity under the government contractor defense, Appellee must first prove that the government established specifications for the portion of the product that caused the plaintiffs injuries

Commonwealth v. Tryon

31 Pa. Super. 146 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1906

the same time clearly and carefully stated. … The only ground upon which he attempted to qualify was the information which he had received as to the rentals of the real estate.

Rauch v. Mike-Mayer

2001 Pa. Super. 270 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2001

Some doctors will be more qualified than others to provide evidence about specific medical practices. Id. … We have considered the expert reports carefully and conclude that both clearly indicate that the anesthesiologists and surgeons who worked on Mrs.

Rose v. Annabi

2007 Pa. Super. 308 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2007

None of the experts produced by either Plaintiff or Appellant were qualified to establish Dr. Korkor’s standard of care as a colorectal surgeon and to opine that his treatment and diagnosis of Mr. … The MCARE Act provides for a three part test in which each basis must be established. Dr. Annabi failed to establish the second and third criteria.

Shumosky v. Lutheran Welfare Services of Northeastern PA, Inc.

2001 Pa. Super. 285 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2001

Shumosky learned for the first time that the patient was suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, an affliction more commonly known as AIDS. Mrs. … “The intent to indemnify against claims by employees of the alleged indemnitor must clearly appear from the terms of the agreement.” Bethlehem Steel, supra.

York Haven Water & Power Co. v. Public Service Commission

87 Pa. Super. 213 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1925

It established a plant and equipment therefor, and appears to have exercised the power of eminent domain: Rider’s case, 255 Pa. 196, 198 . … The court said: “There is a well-marked distinction between a water-power company and an electric light company, and the defendant is clearly the former and not the latter.

Kovalev v. Sowell

2003 Pa. Super. 432 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2003

Slade, 399 Pa.Super. 9 , 581 A.2d 649 (1990) (upholding trial court’s refusal to qualify orthodontist as an expert witness on oral surgery); McDaniel, supra (physician specializing in anesthesiology not qualified to express … This is clearly a case where expert medical testimony was necessary to establish the requisite causal nexus.

In re Reglan/Metoclopramide Litigation

2013 Pa. Super. 214 · 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.