Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,940 results
0.44s
In the Matter of: Peterson Family
333 A.3d 453 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2025
“Medically needy” individuals must qualify for the financial assistance provided through Medicaid. Id. at 332 n.2. … Although the trust agreement does not specifically state that the Trust was established to protect the Trust’s assets (Appellants’ residence) from claims under Medicaid, Section 3 of the trust agreement clearly states
Cited 4 timesPublishedSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2014
The Navarette Court relied upon that fact that “[a] 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracing callers, and thus provides some safeguards against making false reports with immunity,” such as the fact … The facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable, and no such safeguards establishing reliability were in place.
Cited 0 timesPublished166 Pa. Super. 271 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1949
The verdict establishes these facts: Without the actual knoAvledge of, or notice to, the defendant Everett B. … A new trial would not avail plaintiffs on the issues raised in the present action in deceit; appellant clearly is entitled to judgment n. o. v.
Reversed on other grounds by LITTLER v. DUNBAR, 365 Pa. 277 (1950)Cited 11 timesPublishedGustafson, M. v. Springfield 282 A.3d 739
282 A.3d 739 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2022
The PLCAA provides immunity for manufacturers and sellers of firearms from claims - 25 - J-E02008-21 based on harm caused by third parties. … I agree the Gustafsons cannot establish a due process claim as they lack a vested property right.
Cited 0 timesPublished280 Pa. Super. 20 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1980
Clearly, the arrest occurred when the officer later approached appellant and formally placed him under arrest. … The test shall be administered by qualified personnel and with equipment approved by the *30 department.
Cited 53 timesPublishedCommonwealth Ex Rel. Davis v. Baldi
181 Pa. Super. 251 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1956
However, the record of the proceedings on this petition definitely established there was an actual commitment, the relator, who requested the writ, was in court and was identified by the deputy sheriff as being the man he … The lack of any merit to this contention of relator is apparent in light of the statement in the opinion of the court below that “The record clearly shows that counsel appointed at his request by the Court under the volunteer
Cited 4 timesPublishedMcClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization
413 Pa. Super. 128 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1992
insufficient to establish the pleader’s right to relief. … Since the sustaining of a demurrer results in a denial of the pleader’s claim or a dismissal of his suit, a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only in cases that clearly and without doubt
Cited 74 timesPublishedAlfonsi v. Huntington Hospital, Inc.
2002 Pa. Super. 126 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2002
Appellees responded and cited the qualified immunity provisions of the Mental Health and Procedures Act, 50 P.S. § 7114(a), which offers protection to physicians and mental health facilities in the absence of willful misconduct … Appellant responded by arguing that gross negligence was established, but never challenged the motion for nonsuit by arguing that it could not be entered because defense evidence had been presented.
Cited 11 timesPublishedBuerger v. Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment, Appeals & Review
188 Pa. Super. 561 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1959
That they need not be qualified as experts is all the more reason why cross-examination of them should not be unduly restricted. … The legislature has established a board whose duty it is to determine the ratio of assessed value to actual value.
Cited 12 timesPublishedWhittington v. Episcopal Hospital
2001 Pa. Super. 40 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 2001
However, the procedure was delayed for at least an hour and performed under clearly unfavorable conditions. … and was a way appellees established notice.
Cited 30 timesPublished33 Pa. Super. 290 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1907
Both clearly recognize James Morrison and plaintiff as the owners of the property. … It is a well-established rule in such cases that if the relation of “ trustee ” and cestui que trust be once established as to certain property in the hands of the former, no mere change of the trust property from one form
Cited 11 timesPublished703 A.2d 1046 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1997
Hence, the trial court clearly articulated individualized reasons for the sentence imposed on appellant. … These statements never qualified Ms. Faison’s identification of appellant, but rather explained what she saw at the time of the incident. Indeed, Ms.
Cited 29 timesPublishedTerra Firma Builders v. King, W.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2019
This contention entirely overlooks the well established rules applicable to the interpretation of mechanics' liens. The language of the provision is clearly mandatory [ . ]. … Section 505 sets forth the procedure for contesting the validity of a mechanics' lien: Any party may preliminarily object to a claim upon a showing of exemption or immunity of the property from lien, or for lack
Cited 0 timesPublished693 A.2d 607 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1997
If a child is adjudicated dependant under the Juvenile Act, he or she cannot be separated from his or her parents absent a showing that the separation is clearly necessary. … With the above standards in mind, and after a careful review of the record, we reverse the trial court’s order as to the finding of child abuse as it was not supported by competent evidence that clearly established that either
Cited 32 timesPublishedGarber v. Travelers Insurance Companies
280 Pa. Super. 323 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1980
The lower court found that appellee’s testimony established that they were, and no party has objected to that finding. The construction of an insurance policy is a question of law, Adelman v. … The difficulty with this argument is that to qualify as a “temporary substitute automobile,” the Buick had to be an automobile “not owned by the named insured.”
Cited 17 timesPublishedPhillips v. Duquesne Traction Co.
8 Pa. Super. 210 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1898
The law fixes no arbitrary period when the immunity of childhood ceases and the responsibilities of life begin. Under the age of fourteen the presumption of incapacity prevails. … If he establishes a case against the defendant without disclosing negligence on his own part, he is entitled to go to the jury.
Cited 5 timesPublishedEtna Manufacturing Co. v. Enos
31 Pa. Super. 393 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1906
What is a reasonable time, where the facts are ascertained, is ordinarily a question of law for the court, to be determined upon a consideration of all the cjrcumstanc.es; where, however, the facts are not clearly established … But we are clearly of the opinion that the evidence does not establish a bailment.
Cited 1 timesPublishedWright v. Residence Inn by Marriott, Inc.
207 A.3d 970 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2019
The jury clearly found this sufficiently provided injury, causation, and damages.”4 Id. … Because the jury found in favor ____________________________________________ 4 In a personal injury case, when there is no obvious causal relationship between the accident and the injury, medical testimony is necessary to establish
Cited 13 timesPublished297 A.3d 755 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2023
“was irresponsible or was granted immunity from prosecution.” … However, although Pennsylvania has not explicitly adopted the unilateral approach to conspiracy, our statutes and case law clearly reflect that the Commonwealth can prove a defendant’s guilt for conspiracy without establishing
Cited 64 timesPublished2021 Pa. Super. 34 · 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.
Cited 1 timesPublished
Ask Donna