Case law

Evans, B. v. Capital Blue Cross

269 A.3d 569 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2022

For the same reasons that she failed to establish a prima facie claim for breach of contract…, [she] also fails to establish a prima facie claim for violation of the WPCL….” Id. at ¶¶ 68-69. … Evans can establish the existence of a contract, she cannot prove that it was breached.” Id. at 34.

Boyle, E. v. Main Line Health

2025 Pa. Super. 199 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 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 Defendants’ Brief at 45).

Commonwealth v. Ranson

2014 Pa. Super. 227 · Superior 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.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Valentine v. Strongel

246 Pa. Super. 466 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1977

Appellant contends that the lower court could not properly consider the blood test results because they were dehors the record and that the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity 2 establishes a requirement that … Clearly it was error for the trial court to use evidence dehors the record to make its determinations. We reverse and remand for a new trial. WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS and VAN der VOORT, JJ., dissent. 1 .

Elia v. Erie Insurance Exchange

430 Pa. Super. 384 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1993

Depending upon the importance of the publisher’s actions to society, the privilege may be absolute or conditional/qualified. … Once a matter is deemed conditionally privileged, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant abused that *393 conditional privilege. Chicarella, 343 Pa.Super. at 337 , 494 A.2d at 1113 .

Bierer v. Nationwide Insurance

314 Pa. Super. 397 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1983

The Court stated: “To accept the insurer’s argument that its liability is contingent on a condition precedent permits the insurer to hold itself immune from liability while it considers whether to accept or reject the risk … Only after such an unequivocal showing that the consumer is to be given no immediate benefits in return for his or her cash payment can a court say that the insurer has sustained its burden of establishing by clear and convincing

Wiltrout v. Circle Mobile Home Sales, Inc.

293 Pa. Super. 131 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1981

The lower court’s opinion properly recites the five conditions, established in legal precedents, including McDonald v. … A second contention of appellant is that appellee’s evidence affirmatively establishes that there was no breach of duty by Bell Telephone.

Commonwealth v. Sylvanus

77 Pa. Super. 410 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1921

The 17th section seems to clearly disclose a legislative intention that when an inspector had appointed a duly qualified clerk, who entered upon the discharge of his duties, it was not in the power of the inspector to remove … These provisions make it clearly manifest that it was the legislative intention that all should participate in the count.

Torch v. Constantino

227 Pa. Super. 427 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1974

It is admitted by the appellants that adverse possession was established for more than 21 years. … Erie County, supra, emphasized by the court below, as establishing the law in Pennsylvania, was decided in 1870, and Mr.

McAleer, M. & E. v. Geisinger Med. Ctr.

2025 Pa. Super. 25 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2025

Raijman was not qualified to establish that the care and treatment provided fell short of the required standard of care. On appeal, Appellants raise the following issues: 1. … The Court further found no valid standard of care had been established to support a negligence claim.

Phoenixville Borough Annexation Case

218 Pa. Super. 205 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1971

Such a distinction was clearly set out in the case of Hinkley v. Bishopp, supra, which is in accord with our decision in the present case. … One does not own it, though, each has a qualified freehold interest. We think, therefore, that the application was not void for want of signatures. See, also, People, ex rel. Godwin, v.

Commonwealth v. Carter

2004 Pa. Super. 420 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2004

But this divergence in our holdings is no more than a recognition of the principle that ‘there are clearly different kinds of hearsay testimony possessed of varying degrees of prejudice.’ … Frequently, the cause of death is seriously in issue and the subject of conflicting opinion by qualified physicians.

Sanders v. Loomis Armored, Inc.

418 Pa. Super. 375 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1992

No statute shall be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature. Krenzelak v. Krenzelak, 503 Pa. 373, 380 , 469 A.2d 987, 990 (1983). … (Act 152), created statutory sovereign immunity for the first time in Pennsylvania. The appellants in Gibson filed five separate actions in trespass against the Department of Environmental Resources (DER).

Commonwealth v. MARMON

210 Pa. Super. 202 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 1967

Section 907 of The Administrative Code established one means by which the attorney general may be brought into a criminal proceeding in any of the several counties of the Commonwealth. … An inidividual grand juror may be challenged on the ground that he is not legally qualified or that a state of mind exists on his part which may prevent him from acting impartially.

Com. v. Leclair, C.

236 A.3d 71 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2020

[which] did not show any sort of plan” or establish his intent to murder Wife. Id. at 17. … Appellant argues that his statements were too remote to establish that he had a plan to kill Wife. Id.

McCaskill v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

419 Pa. Super. 313 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1992

A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer may only be sustained where the complaint is clearly insufficient to establish the pleader's right to relief. McGregor v. … Matters in which immunity has been waived pursuant to Subchapter C of Chapter 85 (relating to actions against local parties).

Commonwealth v. Barker

325 Pa. Super. 357 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1984

Both the fluorescent lights and the daylight enabled the victim to see the defendant clearly at this point. … It does not matter whether the person you believe committed the crime has not been prosecuted or convicted, or has been convicted of different crime or degree of crime, or has immunity from prosecution, or even if that person

Commonwealth v. Guess

273 Pa. Super. 72 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1979

The findings of the court below after a suppression hearing are clearly supported by the record and are binding on the trial court. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 467 Pa. 146 , 354 A.2d 886 (1976). … The facts underlying the question asked of the doctor had already been established at trial. The defendant admitted that his victim was in a reclining position when he shot her.

Commonwealth v. Di Silvestro

31 Pa. Super. 537 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1906

However, such references represented but a minor part pf the articles, and even if such part could be deemed proper for public information or investigation, which we do not concede, all immunity on that ground is lost to … Tiie facts being clearly established by the personal testimony of the defendants, it became a question of law for the court to declare whether or not the communiea *554 tion was privileged: Neeb v.

Hall v. Episcopal Long Term Care

54 A.3d 381 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2012

Olive Christine Williams Brown, RN, who was presented by the Estate and qualified by the trial court as an expert in the field of geriatric nursing, testified she reviewed materials concerning the care and treatment of the … The evidence in question related to all residents of Highland; [the plaintiff-decedent] was clearly a resident of Highland during the time covered by these witnesses.