Case law

Lyall v. Lyall

240 Pa. Super. 649 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1976

Appellee’s testimony at the second hearing established that appellant had been institutionalized several times for emotional problems. … Appellant’s testimony at that hearing was often bizarre and incoherent. 3 Testimony at that hearing also established appellant’s need for a support allowance.

White v. White

185 Pa. Super. 141 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1958

The evidence related in this paragraph establishes a desertion which was willful, and presumably malicious. … He *145 could not qualify as a gentleman; but tbe right to divorce is not limited to gentlemen.

Tong-Summerford, A. v. Abington Mem. Hosp.

190 A.3d 631 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2018

It is also well established that a witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience. … This testimony sufficiently sets forth a prima facie case of corporate negligence.11 The evidence in the record clearly established there were no written policies or protocols in place in 2008 regarding the

Com. v. Holmes, T.

2024 Pa. Super. 269 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2024

Therefore, our standard of review is whether the trial court's legal conclusions are correct and whether its factual findings are clearly erroneous.” Id. (citation omitted). … She then qualified her answer by stating, “I don’t think that’s fair to judge every officer. I don’t know if that was, like, a generalized question or if that was just, like, one specific officer.

Phillips Unemployment Compensation Case

163 Pa. Super. 374 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1948

When members of the Machinists Union appeared for work on May 20, 1946, they discovered the office employees had established a picket line. … The testimony clearly indicates that appellant and the other members Of his union made no attempt to cross the picket line to determine if the doors were locked.

Blank v. Barnhart

17 Pa. Super. 214 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 1901

Their applicability to the case on trial, so far as they related to the controlling importance of monuments and marks on the ground, is clearly shown by a bare reference to the facts submitted for the jury’s determination … All of the assignments of error, excepting the first two, (and even they are subject to criticism, as we have seen) were framed without regard to the familiar and long established rule of court, that “when the error assigned

Commonwealth v. Bonds

2005 Pa. Super. 432 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2005

We recognize that our trial judges are “honorable, fair and competent,” and although we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside … Bonds provides no authority to establish that this explanation was not sufficient and, consequently, fails to sustain his claim of bias.

In Re Fiori

438 Pa. Super. 610 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1995

As to life *617 sustaining measures, in some instances the patient will have clearly articulated his or her view; in others the patient will have expressed a view, but it has not been clearly articulated; and, in others, … She is clearly qualified to exercise substituted judgment and can express what Mr. Fiori would want.

Commonwealth v. Stanley

39 Pa. Super. 402 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1909

, unlawfully, knowingly and willfully” voting at an election for public municipal officers in the election district of the first ward of the borough of Bridgeport, Montgomery county, he not then and there being a person qualified … The appellant must not only establish the existence of. an *405 error in the proceedings below, but that the error of which he complains has tended to his injury, and as a general rule it is not sufficient to show that an

Commonwealth v. Reed

2011 Pa. Super. 96 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2011

Stating one’s name may qualify as an assertion of fact relating to identity. Production of identity documents may qualify as an assertion of fact relating to identity. … As we noted ..., acts of production may yield testimony establishing “the existence, authenticity, and custody of items [the police seek].”

Karam v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

205 Pa. Super. 318 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1965

Ten employees of appellant were on duty at that time, four of whom were qualified to handle this live wire. … Finally, contributory negligence may be declared as a matter of law only when it is so clearly revealed that fair and reasonable persons cannot disagree as to its existence. Ashcraft v. C. G.

Passarello v. Grumbine

2011 Pa. Super. 199 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2011

She also immunized him for DPT, Polio, Haemophi-lus Influenza Type B, Hepatitis B, and Pneumococcus. … Postmortem examination established the cause of death to be diffuse acute viral myocardi-tis, a viral infection of the heart muscle.

Wade v. Heisey

243 Pa. Super. 8 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1976

A judgment on the pleadings should not be granted unless the moving party’s right to prevail is “so clear that ‘a trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise.’ Bata v. … Appellants’ complaint and reply establish the following facts.

Commonwealth v. Savage

2017 Pa. Super. 57 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2017

the CYS Report When reviewing a trial court’s decision regarding the admissibility of evidence, we use an abuse of discretion standard and will only reverse “upon a showing that the trial court clearly … The trial court rejected this theory on the ground that the purpose of admitting the CYS Report would be to establish that it was not Appellant, but Ms.

Commonwealth v. Green

204 A.3d 469 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 2019

She appears otherwise nude and has her legs spread so as to display her genital area which is clearly visible. In the upper left corner of the image is printed a company logo "LS Island." Id. … This was sufficient to establish probable cause to believe a device containing child pornography was located at the residence.

Commonwealth v. May

63 Pa. Super. 521 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1916

More than once in the course of the general charge, as well as in the answers to the points presented on behalf of the defendant, the learned trial judge correctly and clearly explained to the jury the nature of the offense … second assignment is overruled. *528 The defendant’s points, except the one asking for a binding direction, were all affirmed, and we find nothing in the remarks made by the learned trial judge as a part of his answers that qualified

Commonwealth v. Kilgallen

175 Pa. Super. 52 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1954

What the appellant attempted to accomplish in the present proceeding was to establish by testimony of jurors who were members of the regular Indicting Grand Jury that bills against Kilgallen were found on evidence improperly … The averments clearly present the case of the defendant. He claimed privilege under Art.

Commonwealth v. Jermyn

101 Pa. Super. 455 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1930

Miller’s machines enjoyed almost complete immunity *465 from police interference for two and one-half years. … The evidence tended to support the Commonwealth’s theory that the Miller machines enjoyed immunity from police interference.

Com. v. Barr, T.

2020 Pa. Super. 236 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2020

The MMA has clearly altered the underlying factual context in which that probable cause test applies. … See Amici Brief at 5 (“The logical nexus between smelling marijuana in a car and the likelihood of finding unlawfully possessed narcotics is not immune to the effects of time and changes in law; it is affected and altered

Maney v. Lloyd

430 Pa. Super. 441 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1993

In an Answer and New Matter, State Auto averred that its policy with Jeffrey Shimmel contained a clause which rendered it immune from liability; it provided as follows: EXCLUSIONS B. … When summary judgment has been granted, the standard of review is as follows: an order granting summary judgment will not be reversed unless the trial court has committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion.