Case law

Dressel Associates, Inc. v. John A. Welsch Real Estate Appraisers, Inc.

429 Pa. Super. 379 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1993

After carefully reviewing the Dressel-Rueger agreement, we conclude that neither party expressly intended to establish third party benefits in favor of the appraiser. … Paragraph 3 of the agreement of sale, when read in context with the entire agreement, is clearly an attempt by Rueger and Dressel to define their corresponding rights inter se.

Riccardi Mot. Car Co. Inc. v. Weinstein

98 Pa. Super. 41 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 1929

Possession usually follows title and an affirmation of absolute ownership or a qualified property with the circumstances of such qualified proprietorship, would ordinarily be sufficient to present a prima facie case in favor … Did the affidavit of defense aver facts sufficient to establish Lahr’s title to the automobile?

Bagley v. Philadelphia

148 Pa. Super. 318 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1941

On the other hand, if he was the employee, servant or agent, of the city, the statute strips the city of its preexisting common law immunity from liability for his negligent acts. As stated in Scibilia v. … The exclusive right of the commission to manage and supervise the park -was established in a line of decisions of which Phila. v. McManes et al., 175 Pa. 28 , 31 A. 331 ; Phila. v. Spangler et al., 9 D. & C. 577 (C.

Commonwealth v. Bennett

287 Pa. Super. 485 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1982

S.Ct. 1292 , 59 L.Ed.2d 501 (1979) (Balancing of incremental deterrence of police illegality and strong policy against permitting perjury employed by Court in Harris and Hass is impermissible where prosecution seeks to use immunized … As the Commonwealth states in its brief: “If an accused chooses to take the stand and substantially and clearly contradicts a voluntary statement previously made, the judiciary should not insist that the fact finder be prevented

Commonwealth v. Rizzo

455 Pa. Super. 311 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1996

In fact, the record clearly indicates that the court ordered the May 26 hearing for the purpose of determining whether the witnesses would be available at trial. … In my view, this showing is not sufficient to establish that a witness may be "unavailable for trial" within the meaning of Rule 9015.

Griffin, T. v. The Bryn Mawr Hospital

2026 Pa. Super. 53 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2026

this appeal, must establish a system for healthcare workers to report “incidents” and “serious events.” … (G) The utilization of qualified staff.

Mutual Benefit Insurance v. Politopoulos

2013 Pa. Super. 250 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2013

In the letter, [Insurer] asserted that Owners did not qualify as insureds under the Business Owners Policy, and although Owners qualified as insureds under the [Umbrella Policy], the Employers’ Liability Exclusion endorsement … Words are to be interpreted in their normal meaning, unless doing so would be contrary to a clearly expressed public policy. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v.

Commonwealth v. Falk

221 Pa. Super. 43 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1972

Corroboration, to be of value, would have to be based on personal knowledge, and repeated allegations that a police officer “had received information” would clearly not be corroboration, as all the officers could be referring … If the informant in the instant case had been named in the affidavit, there would be at least some indication that she was something less than a paid informer, immune from prosecution.

Pittsburg Brewing Company's Brewer's License

12 Pa. Super. 176 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1899

L. 365, contained a proviso that the act should not be construed to prevent a brewer, otherwise qualified, from receiving an eating house license. … Whether this language, viewing it only as here employed, is used to distinguish merely the separate classes of establishments to be licensed and the separate establishments of different applicants, or separate establishments

Berkley v. Maurer

41 Pa. Super. 171 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1909

Ulmer had been established by precedent as part of the common law of Pennsylvania, or that such a rule would be deducible from established principles of law or of science. … To clearly qualify a witness to testify to his opinion concerning the genuineness of a disputed signature, based on his comparison of it with the exemplar in his mind formed from correspondence alone, the trial judge is justified

Boyle, E. v. Main Line Health

2025 Pa. Super. 148 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2025

The hospital asserted that the patient safety reports were immune from discovery under MCARE and PRPA. … documents that qualify for PSQIA privilege protection” under subsection (ii) of the PSQIA. (Main Line Defendant’s Brief at 45).

Commonwealth v. Worrell

277 Pa. Super. 386 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1980

scheme, plan or design or where it tends to establish intent or motive. … The evidence recited above is clearly relevant to the issue of appellant’s guilty knowledge and, therefore, properly was admitted.

Commonwealth v. Philadelphia, Harrisburg & Pittsburg Railroad

23 Pa. Super. 235 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1903

J., The act, entitled “ An act incorporating' the Miramar Iron Company,” purported to confer upon the company thereby incorporated “ all the rights, powers, privileges, franchises and immunities ” of the Caledonia Iron, Land … The court 'was clearly right in instructing the jury that there could be no conviction on the second count of the indictment. 5.

Presbyterian Medical Center v. Budd

2003 Pa. Super. 323 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2003

However, PMC fails to establish every element of its fraud claim with sufficient particularity. We have already concluded that PMC did not establish the existence of a contract between it and Ms. Budd. … Budd’s status as attorney-in-fact qualifies her as a “debtor” under UFTA.

Commonwealth v. Smith

2016 Pa. Super. 187 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2016

Whether the verdict was. against the greater weight of the evidence and shocks the conscience, was manifestly unreasonable, and was not supported by the law where the evidencé presented at trial clearly established that: … But someone, clearly, tried to remove it.

Cioffi v. Cioffi

2005 Pa. Super. 311 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2005

In reviewing a court’s Order to uphold a marital property settlement agreement, we are limited to determining whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. See Busch v. … It is well-established that the paramount goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the parties’ intent.

Constantine, K. v. Lenox Instr. Co.

325 A.3d 715 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2024

As such, he was clearly qualified to testify as an expert in those fields. In his deposition testimony, which was admitted at trial, he primarily testified about the diagnosis and treatment of the illness. … Alley was not qualified to make that diagnosis because Constantine never established Dr.

Markovsky, J. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co.

2014 Pa. Super. 282 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2014

- 14 - J-A17039-14 [G]iven the actual number of Pennsylvania Defendants who may qualify and the lack of contrary evidence, and the clearly expressed basis … Section 3 extends protections of Section 8128 of the Judicial Code to companies that qualify under Section 1929.1.

Commonwealth v. Kauffman

94 Pa. Super. 419 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1928

Kauffman, do hereby voluntarily, and without any promise made to me or any expectation of immunity under the Criminal Laws of the State of Pennsylvania, admit that I have embezzled and misappropriated the funds of The Exchange … The evidence was adequately and fairly discussed and the rules of law by which the jury were to be guided in reaching their conclusions upon the facts were clearly explained.

Heidel, A. v. Fowler, S.

325 A.3d 816 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2024

Heidel sufficed to establish that Ms. … Heidel was at continued risk of harm.10 In this regard, the trial court’s observations are most apt: Taken as a whole, the evidence in the record establishes that [Mr.