Case law

Talmadge, S. v. Ervin, F.

2020 Pa. Super. 176 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2020

-2- J-A03023-20 [O]ur standard of review when faced with an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court clearly … Thus, this line of inquiry established only that Dr. Zipes did not have the Pill Count Document, or any other part of the police file, when he prepared his expert report.

Sanders, C. v. The Children's Hosp.

2022 Pa. Super. 199 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2022

To hold otherwise would have a chilling effect on the peer review process and would clearly run afoul of the purpose of the statute. Id. at 1244 (cleaned up). … The General Assembly, in enacting [the statutory privileges], clearly voiced an intention to allow for the confidentiality necessary for meaningful peer [and MCARE Act] review.

Yellow Cab Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

170 Pa. Super. 625 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1952

We further feel that neither a strike in breach of a company-union agreement nor a strike not. sanctioned by the union at the employer’s establishment can be characterized as willful misconduct. … Nothing in the Act indicates that §402(d) was intended to immunize an employe during a work stoppage in a labor dispute from the consequences of his willful misconduct connected with his work involving flagrant breach of

Commonwealth v. Light

35 Pa. Super. 366 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1908

L. 330, and after duly qualified performed the duties incident .to that office for the year 1906, and made returns with certificates to the state registrar, who upon approval thereof issued a certificate directed to the treasurer … There is not a single section or a clause of any section in the act that is not clearly germane to the subject expressed in .its title, and the burden imposed by prior legislation on the subject is not shifted: House of Refuge

PNC Bank v. Kerr

2002 Pa. Super. 205 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2002

Thus, Kerr could establish a valid basis to open PNC’s confessed judgment by demonstrating compliance with the ARL. … Clearly, however, a contract to build new buildings differs greatly from business working capital loans.

Commonwealth v. Cupps

157 Pa. Super. 341 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1945

The agreed statement does not clearly disclose the mental and physical state of the child at the time when she told her mother of the occurrence. … In these circumstances, we must assume that the trial court, having expressly admitted the utterance as res gestae, found that it was qualified for admission under all of the requirements of the rule.

Walsh v. Philadelphia Bourse

32 Pa. Super. 348 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1907

This and other testimony to the same effect clearly warranted the jury in finding that the removal of the goods was not prevented in the enforcement of a reasonable regulation for the protection of the defendant’s tenants … has been changed by statute so far as to permit the landlord to follow goods of the tenant clandestinely removed; but these statutes do not apply to the goods of strangers, nor to goods in which the tenant may have had a qualified

Commonwealth v. Hilliard

172 A.3d 5 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2017

Id. _______________________ (Footnote Continued) statement did not qualify as either an excited utterance or a dying declaration. … “The standard clearly does not -7- J-S49004-17 require that the Commonwealth prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at this stage.” Id.

Commonwealth v. Martz

2015 Pa. Super. 144 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2015

The Commonwealth then contends that “[o]bviously, the common law age limits were altered by 6 J-A08007-15 the adoption of this legislation which clearly establishes a presumption … Puberty was established as the upper limit of eligibility for mitigated treatment.

Palmiter, P. v. Commonwealth Health Systems

260 A.3d 967 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2021

See also Gass, supra at 708 (characterizing § 10231.2103(a) as an immunity provision protecting patients from government sanctions). … Nelson, 195 P.3d 826, 833 (Mont. 2008)), “[w]hen a qualifying patient uses medical marijuana in accordance with the MMA, he is receiving lawful medical treatment.

Commonwealth v. Kirwan

2004 Pa. Super. 50 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2004

Unless the privilege clearly does not apply, the trial court should not require the witness to answer. ¶ 21 In this case, it was apparent from the context that if Ms. Sansoni and Mrs. … Johnson, 752 F.2d 206, 210-11 (6th Cir.1985). ¶ 23 And while the Commonwealth could have immunized these witnesses to avoid the problem altogether, it failed to do so. See Swinehart, 664 A.2d at 969.

Young v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital

722 A.2d 153 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1998

. - one of the burdens of proof is to establish the standard that the hospital had an expert - that you needed to have an expert to establish that the hospital breached its duty. I find none. … Instead, demands for information, documents or materials covered by the Peer Review Protection Act must be clearly defined and narrowly tailored.

Butler v. United States Steel Corp.

205 Pa. Super. 508 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1965

The claimant must be totally disabled to qualify for benefits. … This inference can clearly be drawn from his testimony that although his health was bad he was going to quit for his miner’s pension and anticipated social security rather than “lug on”.

Com. v. Bradley, K.

2020 Pa. Super. 109 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2020

immunity … Accordingly, a statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution.

McFeeley, L. v. Shah, S.

226 A.3d 582 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2020

Glick qualified as an expert for purposes of causation pursuant to the common law standard. Specifically, Appellant argues Dr. … The burden to establish an expert’s qualifications under the MCARE Act lies with the proponent of the expert testimony. Weiner v. Fisher, 871 A.2d 1283, 1290 (Pa.Super. 2005).

Commonwealth v. Dellisanti

831 A.2d 1159 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2003

When sold as “cut,” inositol qualifies as a product which is used, or intended for use in the compounding, processing, packaging, repackaging, or conversion of a controlled substance (cocaine). … Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Statute, and I think it sets up the anomalous situation where you could have a business engaged — a business, I say — in loan-sharking, prostitution, theft, you name it, and they would be immune

Jacks Auto v. MJ Auto Body

305 A.3d 162 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2023

Further, the party petitioning to open a judgment bears the burden of establishing such relief. See id. … The law does not establish a specific time period within which a petition to open a judgment must be filed to qualify as timeliness.

Com. v. Beatty, B.

2025 Pa. Super. 96 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2025

All the record establishes is that Detective Henze attempted to contact Beatty via a phone call, but nothing more. … Further, we do not see any improper emphasis from the prosecutor establishing that the Pennsylvania Legislature had a particularized interest in prosecuting Beatty.

Commonwealth v. Kerrigan

2007 Pa. Super. 63 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2007

Doctor John Van Brakle, Chairman of Pediatrics at Lehigh Valley Hospital, was qualified as an expert in pediatric medicine and examination and treatment of child sexual assault injuries. … The trial court further found that the HPV compromised A.R.’s immune system. T.C.O., 11/17/05, at 14.

Commonwealth v. Stipetich

423 Pa. Super. 427 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 1993

By using the phrases "shall sign all bills of indictment" and "conduct in court all criminal prosecutions," the Legislature has clearly indicated an intent that the district attorney be solely responsible for signing a bill … Roberson, 872 F.2d 597, 611 (5th Cir.1989) (State immunity agreement did not bind federal prosecutor).