Case law

In Re Adoption of K.M.W.

718 A.2d 332 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1998

In E.M.A. the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that where a petitioner had the father’s qualified consent to adopt his child, the petitioner was not entitled to be an adopting parent. … Clearly, the other party must be the spouse of the parent retaining custodial rights.

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

Commonwealth v. Doyen

2004 Pa. Super. 137 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2004

Appellants claim that the Commonwealth did not establish the authenticity of Judge Beck’s signature on the wiretap authorization and sealing orders. … The court’s decision was not clearly erroneous and this claim is without merit. ¶ 11 Finally, Appellants challenge the court’s decision to qualify Troop *1014 er Torres to testify as an expert concerning the coded and guarded

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.

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.

Terwilliger v. Kitchen

2001 Pa. Super. 215 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2001

On the evening of the accident, both Kitchen and Stefancin had been consuming alcohol at Klub Kix, a business establishment operated by appellant. … The trial court found the government was immune under the Governmental Immunity Act, 42 Pa.

Denton v. Silver Stream Nursing & Rehabilitation Center

1999 Pa. Super. 251 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1999

Shirey, 456 Pa.Super. 668 , 691 A.2d 511, 513 (1997). ¶ 19 Here, we have a statute that clearly prohibits discharge — the afore-dis-cussed Whistleblower Law. 2 This law represents our Commonwealth’s public policy, as clearly … Although we determined that she failed to establish a valid claim for wrongful discharge, she had stated a valid claim under the Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Holmes v. Lankenau Hospital

426 Pa. Super. 452 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 1993

As to such parties the release acts as a windfall benefit under circumstances that clearly penalize the releasor. … If the agreement works to offer the same immunity from a lawsuit to an unknown third party, as the court held below, then this would seem to be at best an ancillary or incidental intent of the parties, it is clearly not the

In Re Sharpe

248 Pa. Super. 74 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1977

It is a power which a government dedicated to freedom for the individual should exercise with extreme care, and only where the evidence clearly establishes its necessity. … The lower court clearly considered the needs of the child in its placement order. Order affirmed. 8 *81 PRICE, J., concurs in the result.

Eagle v. Snyder

412 Pa. Super. 557 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1992

Heartenstein, was not qualified as an expert and was not permitted to testify, in fact Dr. Heartenstein was qualified and did *569 testify at length. The substance of his testimony is set forth above. … This is clearly a sufficient showing of reasonableness to establish a prima facie case, which appellants failed to rebut.

Shaffer v. Lauria

64 Pa. Super. 265 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1916

This being true, it should logically follow that, in such action, defense could be made on any ground that would establish in the defendant a right either to the absolute or to a qualified possession as against the right … The plaintiff, having established his right at law, was entitled to the protection of the injunctivé decree he prayed for.

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.

Crumpton v. Pittsburg Council, No. 117

1 Pa. Super. 613 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 1896

The object of the association, as stated in its charter, is “ to maintain and promote the interests of American mechanics by assisting them in obtaining employment and encouraging them in business; and establishing a sick … Under the evidence the answer to the point was properly qualified and the second assignment of error must be overruled. On the 9th day of November, 1898, Mr.

Commonwealth v. Fink

700 A.2d 447 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 1997

Instantly, the lawman clearly recognized, and was justified in so doing, the pipe in Fink’s pocket as drug paraphernalia. … Further, I have no doubt that the lawman’s testimony established his certainty as to the incriminating nature of the pipe.

Potter County v. Page

53 Pa. Super. 268 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1913

Opinion by Head, J., The appellee, Page, was the duly elected qualified and *272 acting treasurer of the county of Potter. … We must at once agree that these cases have indubitably established the proposition that the liability of a public officer, appointed or elected, to collect, safeguard and disburse, in the manner., provided by law, public

Commonwealth v. Hunscik

182 Pa. Super. 639 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1956

of the defendant is established” (italics supplied). … Indeed the conviction was so questionable that, when he imposed sentence, the trial judge said: “The verdict was so clearly in the teeth of the evidence that the prosecutrix should have no benefit from it.

Commonwealth v. Soo Hoo Doo

41 Pa. Super. 249 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1909

While some of the excerpts from the charge, wrested from the context which explained and qualified them, might be the subject of criticism, the charge taken as a whole clearly defined the offense for which the defendant was … The jury were clearly given to understand that they were to find the facts, under the evidence.

Hamilton v. Wilson

172 Pa. Super. 437 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1953

Clearly from 1928 to 1944, he was not an employe of the City. He was an employe of the treasurer, appointed by him, paid by him, controlled by him, and responsible solely to him. … The indispensable prerequisite for eligibility to retirement compensation is valid attachment to the public pay roll for the qualifying period.

Smith v. Smith

15 Pa. Super. 366 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1900

Although the wife appeared specially, it has been held many times that such a qualified appearance is of avail only when the writ or service is defective, and in the absence of such defect such a provisional appearance becomes … The applicant for a divorce on such a ground must establish with sufficient certainty, each and every of these ingredients, as elements necessary to constitute desertion within the meaning of the act.

Commonwealth v. Scarfo

416 Pa. Super. 329 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1992

DEATH-QUALIFIED JURY The defendants next raise issues concerning the jury selection which involved “death-qualifying” the chosen jury- *365 A death-qualified jury is one in which the venire persons are questioned regarding … Motive could have been established by other means.