Case law

Commonwealth v. Emmers

33 Pa. Super. 151 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1907

could be convicted of the offense created by the statute he was entitled to a trial in the court of quarter sessions, a court of record in which all misdemeanors are triable, and the burden was upon the commonwealth to establish … This is clearly recognized by this section of the constitution, which places them in a distinct clause and constitutes them a class by themselves.

Stultz v. Reese Bros., Inc.

2003 Pa. Super. 408 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2003

The trial testimony established unequivocally, however, that no one in the company probed into whether screen magnifiers or larger monitors would be sufficient to accommodate appel-lee’s needs. … On the first of the three pages of the application, appellee clearly wrote, “Need special equipment to see; Have hereditary blindness.” Appellant’s Exhibit 3, Reese Brothers’ Pre-employment application (emphasis added).

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).

Estate of: James Schwartz, Appeal of: Becker, H.

275 A.3d 1032 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2022

Where the rules of law on which the court relied are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court’s decree. In re Stacio, 143 A.3d 983, 987 (Pa. … Pending litigation, with the uncertainty that it entails, is distinct from a case in which an estate’s debt to a creditor is firmly established, such as by a judgment on a verdict.

Commonwealth v. Williams

254 Pa. Super. 202 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1978

This rule is qualified somewhat if the alleged violation consists of the commission of another crime during the original period of probation. … Jones, supra, clearly establishes the date of entry of the verdict or plea of guilty as the date of conviction. .

Commonwealth v. Hollihan

388 Pa. Super. 525 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1989

Id. *530 We find that Jewelie clearly perceived the incident giving rise to the excited utterance. … The pressure exerted on the hammer was more clearly conveyed to the nearby jurors than it would have been in a videotape.

Blandon Borough Inc. Case

182 Pa. Super. 304 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1956

Two petitions requesting that the application be refused, signed by freeholders and qualified electors, were also filed. … A decree of the court below in such proceeding will not be set aside on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is distinctly charged and clearly established: Jefferson Borough Incorporation Case, 163 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Line

2008 Pa. Super. 8 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2008

These provisions provide no restrictions to the court’s discretion in imposing sentence and case-law clearly establishes that the imposition of sentence within the authorized range is a matter of the court’s discretion. 12 … ¶ 12 As established above, unlike 18 Pa.

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).

Hershey v. Ninety-Five Associates

413 Pa. Super. 158 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1992

However, this blanket immunity is subject to exceptions mandated by *166 the Pennsylvania legislature, one of which is the genesis of the instant controversy. … Clearly, robbery is related to a business entity's business purpose, and would bar a private cause of action by an employee.

ALTHAUS BY ALTHAUS v. Cohen

710 A.2d 1147 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1998

As the majority clearly delineated in its statement of the facts as elicited from Dr. … This case is clearly distinguishable from those cited by the majority.

Commonwealth v. Spano

451 Pa. Super. 226 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1996

The testimony further established that on or about June 16, 199[4], Constable Spano proceeded to the same address. This time, he had a warrant for Kandi Corbin charging underage drinking, which he failed to present. … With respect to the jury instruction as to the charge of indecent assault, the trial court clearly set forth the four elements that the Commonwealth needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Demora

2016 Pa. Super. 220 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2016

At the close of its review, the court concluded that Demora had not established, among other considerations, that the registration requirement was a material term of his plea agreement. … In Partee, the panel held that a petition seeking immunity from a reporting requirement did not fall under the ambit of the PCRA. See 86 A.3d at 247.

Heckendorn v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

293 Pa. Super. 474 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1982

liability, there can be no cause of action against him for negligence; and he cannot be made a party to his employee’s common law action for negligence against a third person. *478 Conrail’s attempted joinder of Carnation was clearly … We must assume that when the legislature enacted the Comparative Negligence Act it had in mind previous statutes establishing the employer’s immunity from common law actions for negligence. See: Seltzer v.

Commonwealth v. Petaccio

2000 Pa. Super. 384 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2000

clearly established the intentional and knowing conduct requmed by the statute. … Indeed, we observed in Wertelet : [I]t does not follow that the elimination of the qualifier “serious” [in § 2702(a)(3)] from the serious bodily injury element was meant to depreciate the severity of the offense to a point

SPALLONE v. Siegel

239 Pa. Super. 586 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1976

I The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has established standards to be used in construing an exculpatory clause: “Such standards are: (1) contracts providing for immunity from liability for negligence must be construed strictly … it’; (3) such contracts must be construed with every intendment against the party who seeks the immunity from liability; (4) the burden to establish immunity from liability is upon the party who asserts such immunity.”

Follansbee Bros. v. Garrett-Cromwell Engineering Co.

48 Pa. Super. 183 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1911

He clearly appeared in the character of an expert and the plaintiff was entitled- to the benefit of the evidence which, he gave: Detweiler v. Groff, 10 Pa. 376 ; Ambler v. Phillips, 132 Pa. 167 . … Their work was related to a well established method of steel production for which many open hearth furnaces were then used and skill with reference to the particular purpose in view was implied in the contract.

Commonwealth v. Gregory

183 Pa. Super. 53 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1956

One of the county detectives, who qualified as an expert on gambling, testified that these books were the type used by numbers writers. A partially used book was also found in back of the counter. … Here, the evidence clearly disclosed that the gambling paraphernalia was found on appellant’s premises, under his control and supervision.

Dollar Bank, FSB v. EM2 DEVELOPMENT CORP.

716 A.2d 671 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 1998

Clearly, the identity of the party owning the property when the work of building the improvement commenced and the date that Appellant began work are not dis-positive in determining priority. … The work in the instant case does not qualify as either “erection or construction” or as an improvement in and of itself.

Commonwealth v. Passarelli

2001 Pa. Super. 377 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2001

Pennsylvania’s standard for qualifying a witness as an expert is rather liberal. … Miller, 411 Pa.Super. 33 , 600 A.2d 988, 990 (1992). ¶ 33 The record clearly establishes that Mother entrusted Passarelli with S.P.’s care while she ran errands.