Case law

Richman v. Mosites

704 A.2d 655 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1997

Whde ad of these items might constitute “structures,” they do not qualify as “buddings.” … The intent of the covenant’s creators is clearly embodied in the language of the covenant, and there is therefore no genuine issue of material fact in this regard.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. PECO

2012 Pa. Super. 212 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2012

a limitation of liability, this case involves what is just as clearly an exculpatory clause.... … However, reams of prior precedent establish that general contractual terms must yield to more particular terms.

Commonwealth v. Interest of D.S.

2006 Pa. Super. 167 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2006

Because the offenses were “ungraded,” the offenses qualify under the Juvenile Act’s definition of “delinquent act.” … Therefore, D.S.’s offenses do not qualify as “delinquent acts.” Id. Because the offenses do not qualify as “delinquent acts,” D.S.’s offenses must be prosecuted under the criminal law and procedures.

McManamon v. Washko

2006 Pa. Super. 245 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2006

[Appellee] was clearly working on a highway as well as on the driveway leading to All Phase Electric. … Clearly, the jury would have already assumed that [Appellant Washko] denied responsibility.

Zak v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

713 A.2d 681 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1998

This testimony was clearly within his area of expertise. … It is also well established that a witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience.

Commonwealth v. Long

425 Pa. Super. 170 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1993

This fact was clearly understood by the trial court, which stood as fact finder, in this case. … Third, Long alleges that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert, Richard Bradshaw, because Bradshaw was not qualified as an expert on boating.

Commonwealth v. Sheppard

436 Pa. Super. 584 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1994

The mere diagnosis of paranoid personality does not *596 provide appellant with a standing immunity from any charge of homicide higher than voluntary manslaughter. … Nothing in the record in this case establishes such a basis.

Cheskiewicz v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc.

2004 Pa. Super. 40 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2004

This streamlined program establishes standards of proof under which injured claimants benefit from a presumption that *1261 a vaccine listed in the Act’s Vaccine Injury Table, see 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14, caused their injuries … Are Parents “Qualified Litigants?”

Knoll, C. v. Uku, E.

2017 Pa. Super. 6 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2017

During discovery, it was established that the Fourth Avenue property had been sold. … The record establishes that all three conditions for application of § 5105 are present herein.

Commonwealth v. Champney

2017 Pa. Super. 128 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2017

Champney replied that she probably got immunity. … This break between interrogations clearly exceeds the 14-day time bar established in Shatzer.

Commonwealth v. Karetny

2003 Pa. Super. 399 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2003

In eschewing a requirement for highly precise or technical evidence, the Court offered examples of dangerous means that would be commonly understood without expert testimony to qualify as a risk of catastrophe. … Accordingly, I would find that the allegations here clearly make a case of felonious risk of catastrophe.

Verba, R. v. Erie Insurance Exchange

2024 Pa. Super. 251 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2024

To qualify as a collateral order under Rule 313, the order must be separate and distinct from the underlying cause of action. … Grob’s IME is not precluded in this proceeding, then that clearly establishes that [Appellee] already has an IME and does not need another one.

Seko v. Hub Knitting Co.

142 Pa. Super. 309 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1940

The expert testimony clearly established that the present dementia praecox was but the final stage. … There was sufficient evidence to establish that the disease was continuous, even though the disability resulting therefrom might have been intermittent.”

Commonwealth v. Arriaga

422 Pa. Super. 52 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1993

We find Appellant’s argument contrary to firmly established law. Appellant was convicted for violating section (30) of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, 35 P.S. *54 § 780-113(30). … Appellant bears a heavy burden in challenging the constitutionality of a statute; we are not permitted to refuse to enforce § 7508 unless it “clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution.” Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Harrell

2013 Pa. Super. 82 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2013

Cas-sell is clearly of the view that Dr. … Ofshe's testimony does not qualify for admission pursuant to the dictates of Frye and Topa . Trial Court Opinion, 7/13/11, at 9-14.

Gallagher v. Maclean

7 Pa. Super. 408 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 1898

They are made distinctive as courts not of record, and the limits within which they are subject to change by legislative enactment clearly defined. … We think clearly not. This is not an increase in the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court. The powers and duties of such court are not altered or changed.

Commonwealth v. Toritto

2013 Pa. Super. 118 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2013

To qualify for relief under the doctrine of sentencing manipulation in Pennsylvania, a defendant bears the burden of establishing the existence of intentional outrageous government conduct or extraordinary government misconduct … Clearly, Toritto is not arguing that he was treated differently than another person under similar circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Huggins

2013 Pa. Super. 107 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2013

Furthermore, Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 704 clearly permits both expert and lay opinion testimony on issues that ultimately must be decided by the trier of fact, in this case, the jury. … Other precautions include the government establishing the proper foundation for the witness’s expert opinions and the district court allowing rigorous cross-examination. York, 572 F.3d at 425 .

Movie Distributors Liquidating Trust v. Reliance Insurance

407 Pa. Super. 588 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 1991

Assuming that this evidence was even somewhat probative, we believe that the prejudice from this attempted line of questioning clearly outweighed any probative value. … Appellant argues that the plain language of the exclusion, underlined above, clearly excludes the use of inventory or profit and loss computations to establish the amount of the alleged loss sustained by VTR.

Fetherolf v. Torosian

2000 Pa. Super. 260 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2000

The ultrasound showed the lump, but the image did not clearly show whether it was located in breast tissue. Dr. … Michael Leitman, M.D., who was qualified as an expert in surgical oncology, conceded that Dr.