Case law

Commonwealth v. Lewis

180 A.3d 786 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2018

P, David F, Scholl L., Increases in Drug and Opioid-Involved Overdose Deaths — United States, (Footnote Continued) _______________________ a violation of probation or parole if the person can establish … However, if she had summoned anyone else—a neighbor, or passerby, for instance—to phone the police for her, it is clear she would qualify for immunity under the Act.

Bouchon v. Citizen Care, Inc.

176 A.3d 244 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2017

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to allege facts necessary to support a finding of gross negligence, as required in light of the qualified immunity under the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act … facts that could establish gross negligence on the part of Robinson EMS.

Yorty v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

2013 Pa. Super. 265 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2013

Thus, to qualify as a collateral order, the order in question must meet three requirements: 1) separability from the main cause of action; 2) importance of the right to be reviewed; and 3) whether the claim will be irreparably … Grounding the line was clearly the obligation of appellee Yorty’s employer PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.

Gunter v. Constitution State Service Co.

432 Pa. Super. 295 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 1994

It is well-established in this Commonwealth that “nothing is more adamantly established in American trial procedure *299 than that no one may testify to what somebody else told him[/her].” Johnson v. … Rather, she was preoccupied with establishing her state of mind at the time the conversation took place.

Brown v. Delaware Valley Transplant Program

420 Pa. Super. 84 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

We find that there is no dispute as to any material fact, that the undisputed evidence of record establishes the good faith of appellees, and that appellees are, as a matter of law, entitled to the qualified immunity provided … The qualified immunity provided by Section 8607(c) of the Act requires a “good faith” attempt to comply with all of the statutory requirements for organ donation.

In re the Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co.

8 Pa. Super. 141 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1898

The scope and meaning of this section have also been clearly and succinctly defined by the Supreme Court of the United States in the following language: “ The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are … It does not contravene the federal constitution or laws and is not qualified or affected by them.

Martorano Appeal

225 Pa. Super. 474 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1973

Appellant’s substantive contentions here are that no hearing, as required by §640.1 of the Act 2 at which need for the grant of immunity was established, was held or that the hearing was not a full-scale, adversary proceeding … “The establishment of ‘need’ must be proven to the satisfaction of the Court in the cautious and restrained exercise of the extraordinary benefit being allowed the immunized witness.

Feleccia, A. v. Lackawanna College

2017 Pa. Super. 44 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2017

the intent of the parties; 3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is … Code § 18.50(a), (b). 10 The Medical Good Samaritan civil immunity statute provides as follows: (a) General rule.

Commonwealth v. Norris

2011 Pa. Super. 177 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2011

However, unlike the immunity doctrine, the present statute applies to both public officials and public employees. … Although in the ensuing analysis we find that power and authority are not a necessary aspect of employment to qualify for application of the extended statute of limitations, clearly employment that comes with power and authority

Ruspi v. Glatz

69 A.3d 680 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2013

Does Lake Wallenpaupack qualify as “land” under the RULWA? 3. … To the extent of this separation, the Act establishes a dual system of control.

Com. v. Markun, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2017

As the trial court notes, while the statute clearly places the burden of proving immunity upon the defendant, the statute is silent as to the timing and mechanism through which a defendant may seek immunity. … establish the other statutory requirements listed in section 780- 113.7.

Martorano Appeal

231 Pa. Super. 395 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1975

Superior Ct. 474 , 310 A. 2d 683 (1973), discussed the validity of the in camera proceeding at which the prosecution established the need for immunity in the absence of the appellant which he contends flies in the face of … The Pennsylvania Immunity Act must be strictly construed as serious constitutional rights are involved and as the verification was clearly improper, we reverse the order of the court below citing the appellant for contempt

Z.F.I V. Bethanna, W.

244 A.3d 482 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2020

They were clearly listed in her report. She clearly offered this opinion. ... MR. DOYLE: She clearly offered this opinion. … The Defender Association then filed a supplemental post-trial motion, claiming it was entitled to JNOV “based upon a qualified sovereign immunity.”

Commonwealth v. Brown

2011 Pa. Super. 47 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2011

For this reason, the trial court found that Appellant failed to establish that he was amenable to treatment. … The Court concluded that from the prospective of the Commonwealth, an order granting transfer qualified as an interlocutory appeal as of right under Pa.

Commonwealth v. Scouton

20 Pa. Super. 503 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1902

These essentials of the offense charged in the indictment being established, a prima facie case for the commonwealth was made out. … The learned judge committed no error in adverting to this qualifying principle in his answer to the defendant’s fourth point. 8.

O'Brien, J. v. Beatty, K.

329 A.3d 685 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2024

Finally, preliminary objections seeking dismissal of a cause of action “should be sustained only in cases in which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish … The standard for determining who qualifies as a high public official “focus[es] on the nature of the duties of the particular public officer, the importance of his office, and whether or not he has policy- making functions

Carretti v. Schwanger

404 Pa. Super. 51 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1991

Although, the usage of the word “request” is not qualified or explained by the trial court, nor are we capable of ascertaining the connotation of that word held by the trial court, it is clear that Moyer did not request appellant … Appellant was clearly not ordered/requested to go for sandwiches, she was on her own time when she went and indicated she was going to the restaurant in any event.

Commonwealth v. Wibner

73 Pa. Super. 349 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1920

The controlling facts as determined on the trial are as follows: The relation between the defendant and the prosecutrix was clearly established and resulted in the birth of a child May 27, 1917. … The identity of the child was clearly established.

Com. v. Lehman, R.

2020 Pa. Super. 85 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2020

-5- J-A29018-19 The burden of proof under the Drug Overdose Response Immunity Act is not on the Commonwealth; rather, the defendant must establish that he is entitled to … if the person can establish the following . . .”).

Com. v. Marmillion, M.

306 A.3d 936 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2023

It is the defendant who carries the burden of proof to establish she is entitled to immunity under the Act. See Commonwealth v. Lehman, 231 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2020). … Even though the Act potentially provides immunity for Marmillion’s possession of a controlled substance charge, she has failed to establish the trial court erred by failing to grant her immunity for that offense under the