Case law

Burns v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

205 Pa. Super. 389 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1965

It is well established that an insurance policy is construed most strongly against the insurer who has prepared it. Blue Anchor Overall Co. v. … While we are not bound by the holdings in those cases, the distinguishing factors in them point out clearly the weakness in appellant’s own argument.

Newman v. Newman

170 Pa. Super. 238 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1952

The evidence *243 necessary to prove recrimination must have the same degree of certainty to establish the existence of the eharge of adultery against the respondent.” … There is, of course, the requirement that the plaintiff in a divorce action qualify as the “innocent and injured spouse” (Act of May 2,1929, P.

Trust Est. Under Agreement of Sarah Mellon Scaife

276 A.3d 776 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2022

It immunizes the lawyer’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes, summaries, legal research and legal theories, nothing more. Id. … Accordingly, there is no evidence that the information qualifies as privileged under comment f to the Restatement (Third) of Trusts.

In Re: Adopt. of M.R.D. and T.M.D. Appeal of: M.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2015

A facial review of Mother’s involuntary petition therefore, fails to establish a qualified adoptive resource. … It is not the role of this Court to establish societal norms.

Hollywood Shop, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co.

270 Pa. Super. 245 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1979

Appellee called one Julius Pfau, who was qualified as an expert in the field of civil engineering. … One of the employees, Joseph Lubinski, was qualified as an expert in the field of civil engineering.

Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc.

2002 Pa. Super. 303 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2002

The Court went on to recognize, however, that public policy may operate to qualify this privilege enjoyed by an employer. … The Act itself is a compromise, giving immunity from lawsuits to an employer in exchange for a process for paying immediate, set benefits to an injured employee.

Malik v. Uniontown

172 Pa. Super. 562 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1953

But the issue was one of fact for the compensation authorities, and the credibility of those qualifying as experts is not reviewable as a matter of law. Williams v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 148 Pa. … In this connection the Board stated: “We are of the opinion that the testimony clearly establishes that the blow received by the decedent set into operation a se *568 qnence of events . . . terminating in decedent’s death

Larrison v. Larrison

2000 Pa. Super. 111 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2000

A substantive right is defined as a right to equal enjoyment of fundamental rights, privileges and immunities. Sanchez , at 576, 716 A.2d at 1224 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1429 (6th ed.1990)). … Sanchez, supra (holding information obtained through valid and legal means in a sister state may be used to establish probable cause for a search warrant in Pennsylvania even though means not valid in Pennsylvania); see also

DeMascola v. Lancaster

200 Pa. Super. 365 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1963

After this amendment, without the qualifying condition, compensation's now granted for total disability or death when silicosis is a secondary cause. … There was sufficient evidence to establish a causal conxxection between the disability and the heart disease.

Bube v. Weatherly Borough

25 Pa. Super. 88 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1904

All of the essential facts in evidence must be taken as undisputed and, aided by them, there cannot be any inference drawn to qualify in the least the direct and positive statements of the three eyewitnesses, namely, that … Pittsburg, 204 Pa. 509 ), yet in order to hold the owner of this agency liable in damages it is necessary for a plaintiff to establish his case by the same degree of proof as in cases where the cause of injury is more certain

Commonwealth v. Hernandez

2012 Pa. Super. 40 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2012

Appellant qualified this answer by adding that Mr. Carrol asked to see the weapon, and Appellant gave it to him to hold, but Carrol would not give it back. (See N.T. Motion, at 18-19). … The corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence. Establishing the corpus delicti in Pennsylvania is a two-step process.

Commonwealth v. Crawford

2011 Pa. Super. 122 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2011

Merch”), an animal cruelty investigator and veterinarian, was qualified as an expert in the field of veterinary forensic science. (Id. at 300.) Dr. … Appellant claims the Commonwealth failed to establish that she had the mens rea required for this crime. (Appellant’s brief at 16.)

Novitski v. Rusak

2008 Pa. Super. 9 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2008

It is also well established that a witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience. … Lukas was qualified as a vocational expert and certainly was qualified to render an opinion about the degree to which Mr. Novitski’s herniated discs and pinched nerve affect his ability to work.

In Re McCune

705 A.2d 861 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1997

In addition, the trustee’s actions, in purchasing its own stock, clearly constitute self-dealing as defined by Section 4941(d). … Article 7 of the will, however, clearly gives the trustee “sole discretion” to “accept, retain and invest in” its own stock.

Cavaliere v. Duff's Business Institute

413 Pa. Super. 357 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1992

Appellants contend that the replacement instructor was not qualified adequately to instruct the class. Thus, on February 20, 1990, appellants withdrew from the program. … Clearly this case has no relevance here. Similarly, appellants refer us to Dinberg v.

Commonwealth v. Reilly

125 Pa. Super. 340 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1936

instance, to be determined by the court below in the exercise of its sound discretion; and we would not be warranted in holding the determination of the court below to be erroneous, unless an abuse of that discretion was made clearly … Appellant’s attempts to establish the fact that that court had found him not culpable in the administration of the estate were properly rejected.

Rafferty v. Norris

12 Pa. Super. 450 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1900

If° we were at liberty to follow some of the cases of the courts of final resort of other states we might conclude that this fact would save the plaintiff’s case, but we regard the rule as clearly established in this state … Moreover, we are quite well' satisfied to maintain the rule as now established. It is clearly and distinctly defined, and can be readily understood by all and easily applied by the courts. Judgment affirmed.

Altaffer v. Anderson Automobile Co.

77 Pa. Super. 63 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1921

Such findings are not absolutely conclusive upon us, but will be set aside if error clearly appears : Worrall’s App., 110 Pa. 349, p. 362 ; Stockett v. Ryan, 176 Pa. 71, p. 80 . In the late case of McConville v. … No fact is averred from which a court could determine that if the same were established by proof the conclusion to which the defendant swears would follow.”

Shaffer v. Public Service Commission

74 Pa. Super. 597 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1920

The differences with regard to the policy of competition were also clearly set forth by this witness: “Telegraphic systems consist almost entirely of trunk lines connecting cities and the extent of their local wire distribution … Generally speaking, the telegraph company will establish one or at the most a relatively small number of central transmitting offices and their customers must take their telegrams there for transmittal.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Brooks

169 A.3d 667 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2017

In both its motion for summary judgment and in its brief filed with this Court, Appellee argues that the various letters asking Appellant for additional documentation and providing due dates for said documents clearly establish … The record establishes that Attorney Solt, as Appellant’s legal counsel, had various telephone conversations and email communications with SPS representatives.