Case law

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Bulson v. Bulson

278 Pa. Super. 6 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 1980

At a hearing on January 4, 1979, the evidence established the following facts. Appellant’s net earnings were approximately $350 per week (N.T. 8-10), and appellee’s $149 (N.T. 7). … It is axiomatic that the lower court has wide discretion in determining the proper amount of support; unless the court has clearly abused its discretion, its order will be upheld. Commonwealth ex rel. Berry v.

Yanno v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

1999 Pa. Super. 338 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1999

In Gallo , this Court discussed the five factors, use, size, location, openness and improvement, as established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Rivera. See Gallo, 526 A.2d at 364 . … In my opinion, a railroad trestle that is seventeen feet high, and is constructed of wooden planks, steel beams, and large concrete blocks, is clearly a substantial improvement to the land.

Thibodeau v. Comcast Corp.

2006 Pa. Super. 346 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2006

The court found that because the effect of the enforcement of the agreement was corporate immunity, preclusion of class action litigation was unconscionable: [ ]This provision is clearly meant to prevent customers, such as … It is clearly contrary to public policy to immunize large corporations from liability by allowing them to preclude all class action litigation or [ ] arbitration.

James, F. v, Albert Einstein Medical Center

170 A.3d 1156 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2017

(1) Whether the [t]rial [j]udge erred in qualifying Appellee Dr. … But this family loss cannot and should not prevent us from deciding Appellant’s claims according to well-settled precedent by long established legal procedures.

Hein v. Hein

717 A.2d 1053 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1998

Husband’s second argument also fails to establish a basis for the grant of appellate relief. … It is also well established that a witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience.

Thompson v. DeLong

71 Pa. Super. 282 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1919

The witness certainly was qualified to answer. He could give the value of the property and could also estimate the damages. … The answer to the point clearly gave the defendant the right to the six and one-half inches along the dividing line, namely the center of the old wall.

Commonwealth v. Bobbino

144 Pa. Super. 93 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1940

He was, however, registered with the permanent registration commission for New Castle as a qualified elector with a place of residence at 1002 South Jefferson Street but not as a qualified non-resident elector by virtue of … the card stated that he had removed his place of residence from 1002 South Jefferson Street, first election district, eighth ward, New Castle, and on August 28,1939 (about two weeks before the election in question) had established

Commonwealth v. Wallace

2002 Pa. Super. 367 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2002

Appellant’s inaction clearly endangered his children’s welfare. … It is also well-established that a witness does not need formal education on the subject matter of the testimony, and may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience.

Commonwealth v. Byrd

64 Pa. Super. 108 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1916

Until these acts were ’passed there were no such stringent requirements established by law for the practice of medicine and surgery in this State, and it cannot be questioned that it was a proper subject for legislative direction … The principles of both are the same throughout and no one is fully qualified to practice either, who does not understand the fundamental principles of both: 6 Hun 633 , Bouvier’s L. Dict.

York Motor Express Co. v. Public Service Commission

111 Pa. Super. 169 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1933

It was clearly established by the applicants as well as by the appellants that there was a reasonable demand for motor truck transportation between Philadelphia and Hanover, leaving for consideration the person or persons … The evidence was also clear that the applicants were qualified by experience and financially to furnish adequate service.

Whistler Sportswear, Inc. v. Rullo

289 Pa. Super. 230 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 1981

Testimony on this record clearly “tends to establish” the assumptions of the hypothetical. The lower court clearly did not permit presumptions built on presumptions leading to “irresponsible speculation,” Auerback v. … Pennsylvania finds evidence relevant “when it tends to establish facts in issue,” Leroi v.

Fidelity Bank v. Tiernan

249 Pa. Super. 216 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1977

conduct on his part . , the burden is upon such person to prove . that the provisions and terms of the contract clearly and unequivocally spell out the intent to grant such immunity and relief from liability. … Absent such proof, the claim of immunity fails. (Emphasis in original.) *228 And see Galligan v.

Commonwealth v. Smith

2002 Pa. Super. 302 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2002

Clearly, Appellant’s vehicle, which was disabled and straddling the centerline of a state route, was a danger to the community. … Consequently, we determined that the evidence was insufficient to establish the causation element of homicide by vehicle.

Commonwealth v. Knox

2016 Pa. Super. 131 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2016

Similarly, evidence of the September 11 drug transaction was admissible to establish the existence of a motive. … (b) Appointment of otherwise qualified interpreter.-- (1) An otherwise qualified interpreter shall be appointed by the presiding judicial officer if a good faith effort was made to obtain a certified

Wasserman v. Fifth & Reed Hospital

442 Pa. Super. 563 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 1995

As in this case, the hospital argued that it was immune from a tort action because the injury arose in the course of employment. … Personal convenience dictated appellee’s choice of eating establishments. Although Ms.

Commonwealth v. Krick

164 Pa. Super. 516 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1949

However, the fact that a complaint was made, even though it does not qualify as res gestae, is always admissible. … For the present, it is enough to point out that where the complaint qualifies as res gestae the details of the victim’s statement may be recounted, but when the statement does not qualify as res gestae or as testimonial rehabilitation

Motley v. C. F. Braun Construction Co.

169 Pa. Super. 141 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1951

To establish her entitlement to compensation the burden was on the claimant to qualify as a dependent widow under §307 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended by the Act of May 18, 1945, P. … It was clearly beyond the province of the court below to substitute its *146 own judgment as to what inferences should have been made in this matter of fact.

Commonwealth v. Smith

206 A.3d 551 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2019

As such, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it qualified Ms. … It is well-established that “[a] trial court may exclude evidence that is irrelevant to the issues presented.

Estate of Pew

409 Pa. Super. 417 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1991

In order for a child born out of wedlock to establish a right to participate in the distribution of the remainder of a trust to be distributed to the children of the deceased father, the claimant must establish by clear and … These certified records, which were neither antiquated nor insufficient, clearly established that Walter C. Pew had type 0 blood. The appellant’s own admission established that she had type AB blood.

Vitteck v. Washington Broadcasting Co.

256 Pa. Super. 427 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1978

The tenor of the broadcast was such to clearly allow the inference that appellant, in essence, made a fool out of himself at the meeting and conducted himself in an unbecoming and irrational manner. … In other words, once the defendant has satisfactorily established the existence of a qualified privilege, the plaintiff must be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate an abuse of the privilege.