Case law

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 Adjudication of Contempt of Myers

83 Pa. Super. 383 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1924

On a habeas corpus, the judgment even of a subordinate state court cannot be disregarded, reversed or set aside, however clearly we may perceive it to be erroneous, and however plain it may be that we ought to reverse it … In all these instances, no one of the component facts constitutes of itself the crime, and yet every one of them must be established in order to establish the crime.

Cousins v. County of Butler

73 Pa. Super. 86 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1919

It was clearly ruled by the Supreme Court of this State in Hubbard v. … But we are not disposed to quarrel with decisions, or unsettle old and well established rules, hence we have but to say that whilst the doctrine respondeat superior does apply to townships, boroughs, and cities, so far as

Pappas v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America

2004 Pa. Super. 310 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2004

Carpenter, concluded that the terms of UNUM’s policies, were not ambiguous and clearly excluded payment of claims on the grounds Pappas asserted. … Moreover, because the disability caused by the cervical disc injury has not ceased, Pappas clearly is not eligible to claim benefits under the Successive Disabilities provision.

Aquino v. Bulletin Co.

190 Pa. Super. 528 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1959

Legal actions for invasion of the right of privacy must not be a vehicle for the establishment of a judicial censorship of the press. … The publication of a newsworthy event should always be privileged, unless its presentation is such that the intrusion upon the lives of the parties named in it clearly goes beyond the limits of decency.

Ferraro, B. v. Temple University

185 A.3d 396 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2018

First, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. … Nonetheless, Ferraro does not clearly indicate any particular actions that were antagonistic.

Hersch v. Clapper

232 Pa. Super. 550 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1975

In a trespass action, however, a meritorious defense need not be established when the equities are otherwise clear. Kraynick v. Hertz, 443 Pa. 105 (1971). … That is clearly not the case in the present appeal however.

Leight v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Physicians, UPMC

202 A.3d 103 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2018

Prisk recognized that Shick clearly had uncontrolled schizophrenia upon examination and review of his medical records, and really needed psychiatric care. 333. Dr. … Super. 1989) (holding that section 7103 clearly states that the MHPA does not apply to voluntary outpatient treatment); see also DeJesus v. U.S.

Christian v. Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan

454 Pa. Super. 512 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1996

Is the Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan immune from discovery sanctions for failure to admit pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4014 and 4019(d)[?] 2. … As a required element in a prima facie case of negligence, causation must be established before liability is imposed.

Storms Ex Rel. Storms v. O'MALLEY

2001 Pa. Super. 184 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2001

They claim they are not only immune but that their immunity is not waivable, even if they negligently failed to do so before. … “Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.” Id.

George v. Ellis

2006 Pa. Super. 306 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2006

BULL IS OTHERWISE QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT UNDER THE M-CARE ACT. … . ¶ 5 Our standard of review is as follows: The standard of review of a trial court’s entry of summary judgment is *125 well-established.

Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center

2006 Pa. Super. 274 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2006

The trial court sustained the objection, ruling that because Nurse Pershall was not a medical doctor, she was not qualified to give a medical diagnosis. … Brickley’s testimony clearly revealed that he was not well-informed about the wound care that Appellees had rendered to Appellant. Specifically, Mr.

Azaravich, L. v. Wilkes-Barre Hosp. Co., LLC 44 MDA 2023 Reargument Denied 8/12/24 318 A.3d 876

318 A.3d 876 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2024

Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in its application of the immunity provision of the Mental Health Procedures Act 1 (MHPA) to Appellant’s corporate negligence claim. … [There are] three elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of corporate negligence. The plaintiff must establish all of the following: 1.

Gulf Mortgage & Realty Investments v. Alten

282 Pa. Super. 230 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1980

It is apparent that the shares of Meneses and Dean, P.C., do not qualify as “securities” within this definition. … qualified bidders would not be a public sale.

Commonwealth v. Figueroa

456 Pa. Super. 620 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1997

Clearly, as a Commonwealth entity, the Department cannot qualify for restitution based upon its status as a victim. [1] A subsequent amendment to § 1106 redefined "victim" to include, under the appropriate circumstances, … This dissent does not argue for the establishment of a general rule requiring restitution from all users of government services.

Ontelaunee Orchards, Inc. v. Rothermel

139 Pa. Super. 44 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1939

The habendum may enlarge, expound, qualify or vary the estate granted in the premises of the deed: Irwin v. Hoffman et al., 319 Pa. 8, 15 , 179 A. 41 , and authorities there cited. … For the same reason, the established principle that a taking under eminent domain gives only a qualified fee, viz., for so long as the land is used for corporate purposes, and not a fee simple, in the absence of express statutory

Ashdale, T. v. Guidi Homes

248 A.3d 521 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2021

Our Supreme Court stressed that appellate courts must “construe the collateral order doctrine narrowly, and insist that each one of its three prongs be ‘clearly present’ before collateral appellate review is allowed.” … As we set forth above, Appellants argued that Appellees’ experts failed to establish that the damage complained of occurred in the eleventh and twelfth years after construction. Id. at 10.

Commonwealth v. Hansell

185 Pa. Super. 443 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1958

Certainly it was permissible for appellant to have Gentner testify, if qualified, to Lambert’s reputation for truth and veracity at the time. … It was clearly error for the trial judge to hold that Gentner was not so qualified unless he could name specifically the people who also knew Lambert.

Abbott v. Anchor Glass Container Corp.

2000 Pa. Super. 249 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2000

“However, a later motion should not be entertained or granted when a motion of the same kind has previously been denied, unless intervening changes in the facts or the law clearly warrant a new *1223 look at the question. … In exchange for the right to compensation without the burden of establishing fault, employees gave up their right to sue the employer in tort for injuries received in the course of employment. Snyder v.

Hill v. Trailmobile, Inc.

412 Pa. Super. 320 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 1992

Carl Young purchased the assets of Central Hydraulic for resale, and held title to them only sufficiently long to locate a qualified buyer, which turned out to be Milwaukee Cylinder. … from liability, and 4) the burden of establishing immunity from liability is upon the party asserting it.