Case law

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.

Commonwealth v. Rhone

174 Pa. Super. 166 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 11, 1953

The words “by force, menace, threat,” describe specific methods of resistance which are prohibited, *170 but that such methods are not exclusive, nor the scope of prescribed resistance so limited is fully established by the … The record clearly reveals the information specified November 1, 1951 as the date appellant unlawfully resisted inspection.

Reading Radio, Inc. v. Fink

2003 Pa. Super. 353 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2003

It is also well established that a witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience. Formal education on the subject matter of the testimony is not required [...]. … Fenics, 337 Pa. 529 , 11 A.2d 871 (1940): When [a] plaintiff [...] relies on subsequent acts to establish the conspiracy, these acts must be such as to clearly indicate the prior collusive combination [...], not slight circumstances

Commonwealth v. Askew

2006 Pa. Super. 239 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2006

In fact, the Court has specifically found that the requirements “are not sufficiently onerous to qualify as punishment based upon alleged excessiveness.” … Viewing this testimony in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we find that it establishes clearly and convincingly the requirements for a sexually violent predator.

Commonwealth of Pa. v. Schambers

110 Pa. Super. 61 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1933

L. 158 (19 PS §681), removed that disability, and all persons are now qualified to be wit *63 nesses in any criminal proceeding, with certain exceptions which are not involved in this case. … No collateral issue of fact is thus raised, as the record establishes the fact; only crimes of felony or a misdemeanor in the nature of crimen falsi are admissible to affect credibility.”

Com. v. Caraballo, A.

325 A.3d 1025 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2024

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Expert testimony is not necessary to establish impairment under subsection 3802(d)(2) where there exists other independent evidence of impairment. Id.

Milshteyn, P. v. Fitness International, LLC

271 A.3d 498 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2022

judgment entails reviewing the evidence of record to determine if there is a triable issue of fact: Pennsylvania law provides that summary judgment may be granted only in those cases in which the record clearly … the intent of the parties; 3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is

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).

Stephenson v. Pennsylvania Railroad

20 Pa. Super. 157 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1902

But it is impracticable in most cases to establish such a fact by the direct testimony of eyewitnesses. … This is the well established rule in Pennsylvania, as the cases cited in the appellant’s brief abundantly show.

Commonwealth v. Anderson

294 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1981

In our foregoing discussion of manifest necessity, it was clearly established that the prosecutor's statements to the press resulted in "serious and incurable prejudice" to Appellants. … Clearly, this sequence of events *20 shows that the trial was proceeding in a manner unfavorable to the prosecution. But see Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Guiliano

274 Pa. Super. 419 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1980

Chemical analysis established a reading of .11% blood alcohol level. *423 Appellant first contends the court erred in refusing to suppress the results of the blood test. … The officer was fearful appellant may have sustained internal injuries in addition to the contusions and lacerated lip that were *425 clearly visible and did not wish to aggravate same by a trip to the barracks.

Commonwealth v. Bowser

425 Pa. Super. 24 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1993

Clearly, these facts are sufficient to support a determination regarding the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. … Our standard for reviewing such a challenge is well-established.

Uzho, M. v. Top Gun Construction, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2021

Our Supreme Court established the test for qualifying as a statutory employer in McDonald. … McDonald clearly requires one or the other, not both, as Appellants suggest.

Commonwealth v. Upshur

2000 Pa. Super. 376 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2000

At sidebar the parties argued whether or not the motorist’s statement qualified as an excited utterance. … He claims that because the statement was made so close in time to the shooting, it qualifies as an excited utterance.

Com. v. Leclair, C.

2020 Pa. Super. 174 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2020

[which] did not show any sort of plan” or establish his intent to murder Wife. Id. at 17. … Appellant argues that his statements were too remote to establish that he had a plan to kill Wife. Id.

Iben v. Monaca Borough

158 Pa. Super. 46 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1945

The verdict in his favor established that he was only temporarily disabled, by the injury. … This is the universal rule of constitutional law, and in no state has it been more clearly expressed and more uniformly applied than in Pennsylvania”: Com. v. Moir, 199 Pa. 534 , 49 A. 351 ; Philadelphia v.

Lambert v. PBI INDUSTRIES

244 Pa. Super. 118 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1976

It was established at trial that the intended purpose of the V-clips was to hold light metal rods, wire mesh and gunite as a covering for the bunker sheets. … While a welder or a metallurgist might have been better qualified, it does not appear that, as a materials engineer and consulting chemist, Venable was ««qualified.

Angelo v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.

189 Pa. Super. 574 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1959

Appellant concedes that there was a sudden and unusual jolt, which affected not only the plaintiff but other passengers as well, but contends that the uncontradicted testimony of the bus operator establishes the exercise … We are clearly of the opinion that the trial judge did not err in submitting the question of negligence to the jury.

Commonwealth v. Carroll

358 Pa. Super. 357 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1986

The court in its Opinion discusses the law as it applies to choice of counsel and properly establishes that a non-lawyer cannot represent others in court. … Neither the appellant nor the trial court could qualify the appellant’s designee as a lawyer for purposes of representing him in a criminal proceeding. *362 The court also discussed appellant’s conduct and determined that

Shared Communications Services of 1800-80 JFK Boulevard Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Properties Inc.

692 A.2d 570 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1997

Pike Coal Co., 488 Pa. 198 , 412 A.2d 466 (1979), supports their claim of per se immunity from civil conspiracy. … Therefore, we reject Bell PA and BAC’s claim of immunity from civil conspiracy liability.