Case law

Viguers v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

2003 Pa. Super. 446 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2003

Associates, 805 A.2d 579 (Pa.Super.2002) (neurosurgeon not qualified to give opinion on internal medicine or nursing); Dierolf v. … 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (State failure to warn claims are preempted to the extent they require a showing that the manufacturers’ post-1969 advertising or promotion should have included additional or more clearly

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.

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.

Dougherty v. Conduit & Foundation Corp.

449 Pa. Super. 405 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1996

The language of the two contract documents, namely the purchase order and the bid form, clearly specify that painting is one of the obligations which the contractor assumed under its contract with Amtrak, the owner of 30th … party, hired by defendant, was injured moving equipment at laboratory owned by the United States, defendantr-company who contracted with premises owner was not held to be a “statutory employer” because it was never *413 established

Commonwealth v. Ohle

291 Pa. Super. 110 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 1982

The Commonwealth’s failure to indict Ohle under the Penal Code clearly constituted a defect in the indictment. … There was no error in refusing to suppress evidence because it was clearly established that it was properly obtained and untainted. 10 C.

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.

Troxel v. A.I. duPont Institute

450 Pa. Super. 71 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1996

contagious disease; that it exists in the general population; that while it is generally harmless and often may go unnoticed in most individuals, it may have severe consequences for certain at-risk groups, such as those whose immune … Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

Commonwealth v. Silver

260 Pa. Super. 232 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 1978

Although identification evidence is clearly sufficient to support a conviction, even in the face of contradictory alibi evidence, Commonwealth v. … There are other cases which involve proper identification proceedings, resulting in no identification or qualified identification. In such a situation, the subsequent in-court identification is at once admissible.

Oliver v. Oliver

172 Pa. Super. 600 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1953

Clearly, if plaintiff feared for his physical safety at the hands of defendant he ■would not now be sharing the common home with her. … Judged by this standard, plaintiff has not only not made out a case of indignities by “clear and satisfactory proof” but he has failed to qualify as the injured and innocent spouse. ' Undoubtedly this has been an unhappy

Rankin v. Phillippe

206 Pa. Super. 27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1965

At the outset, it should be pointed out that the appellant complains that the court erroneously ruled, in granting the nonsuit, that the publication of a defamatory statement by an ecclesiastical commission is immune from … The question of privilege was raised by the facts that were pleaded and the plaintiff’s testimony clearly showed that the publication in question was made on a conditionally privileged occasion.

ISN Bank v. Rajaratnam

83 A.3d 170 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2013

The motion to consolidate judgments filed by Customers Bank in this case did not qualify under any of these categories for either discretionary or non-discretionary modifications, and thus we agree with the trial court’s … However, if only one spouse is a debtor, entireties property is immune from process, petition, levy, execution or sale.

Thompson v. T.J. Whipple Construction Co.

2009 Pa. Super. 57 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2009

Port Authority of Allegheny County, 496 Pa. 52 , 436 A.2d 147, 154 (1981): [Pa.R.C.P.] 238 clearly reflects a primary desire to encourage pre-trial settlement. … The interplay of the Sovereign Immunity Act with Pa. R.C.P. 238 created a unique scenario not applicable here, where the parties were not bound by statutorily-imposed limits on recovery.

Commonwealth v. Green

2011 Pa. Super. 6 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2011

We address these claims under a well-established standard. … Johnson unsuccessfully argued that he qualified for Section 9545(b)(1)(ii)’s exception due to the Sagel lecture. Johnson, 945 A.2d at 192 . 11 .

Commonwealth v. Neiman

2010 Pa. Super. 162 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2010

The court found that the proposed unifying relationship that all provisions related to “municipalities” was overbroad to qualify for single subject status. … Clearly, the focus of Senate Bill 92 was the Megan’s Law amendments.

Keating v. White

141 Pa. Super. 495 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1940

It is also a well-established principle that a determination of the true meaning of a statute requires a broad view of the act and a comparison of the doubtful words with the context' of the law. … The method utilized to prepare “The General County Law” of 1929, as it applied to the matters with which we are here concerned, clearly appears when reference is made to the prior acts to which we have referred, and from

Bortner v. CNA Insurance

332 Pa. Super. 406 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 1984

. § 1009.106(c)(1) establishes the appropriate time limitation for actions seeking benefits intended to compensate either the insured or his estate. See Sachritz v. … In Antanovich , our Court clearly held that “basic loss benefits may not be stacked.”

Com. v. Harper, D.

2020 Pa. Super. 77 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2020

Appellant emphasizes no foundation was laid for this testimony and Officer Moffatt was not qualified as an expert. … It is undisputed that in this case, Officer Moffatt was not offered or qualified as an expert witness. - 19 - J-S03020-20 manner in which he did.

Velasquez, L. v. Miranda, L.

297 A.3d 837 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2023

Additionally, Mother asserts that her concise statement clearly and concisely identified the issues she sought to raise on appeal. … (3) Qualifying juvenile court order(s).

Leonard v. Harris Corp.

290 Pa. Super. 370 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 1981

According to Harris, if it were established that Leonard's injuries were caused by the defective condition of the press, inadequate warnings or safeguards, or the improper cleaning and use of the press, then Leonard's injuries … However, sure the rationale for this proposal and however well it may address a clearly inequitable situation, the fundamental issue in a trial of the claim of an injured plaintiff is the question of which parties are responsible

Potts v. Smith Manufacturing Co.

25 Pa. Super. 206 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 1904

This doctrine was clearly set forth by Chief Justice Marshall in Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U. … In the language of the distinguished judge above named, “ it is not the right to establish these uniform laws, but their actual establishment which is inconsistent with the partial rights of the states.”