Case law

Bank of New York Mellon v. Brooks

2017 Pa. Super. 280 · 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.

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.

DiCampli v. General Electric Co.

193 Pa. Super. 427 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1960

The question before us is whether the compensation authorities were warranted in holding that Mary DiCampli, the claimant, qualified as a partial dependent under Section 307(5) of The Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, … We reversed because the uncontradieted facts of record established only partial dependency. See also Kovatch v.

Galvin v. Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California

206 Pa. Super. 61 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1965

He had been a member of the Milk and Ice Cream Salesmen, Drivers, and Dairy Employees Local No. 205, and was qualified for insurance coverage under a policy of group insurance dated October 18, 1954, issued by the Occidental … This section contains numerous provisions particularly applicable to the life insurance benefits as distinguished from accident and sickness, and establishes a complete system for change of beneficiary, assignment, optional

Com. v. Smith, M.

2024 Pa. Super. 153 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2024

Anybody that would have a similar qualifying condition has access, but, again, it’s very costly for a week or a month’s supply. . . . … See Clayton, 684 A.2d at 1065 (“Clearly, precluding unsafe drivers, even those who are potentially unsafe drivers, from driving on our highways is an important interest.

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.”

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.

Levy v. Rosenblatt

21 Pa. Super. 543 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1902

The etcher, chemist and physician, called by the defendants, clearly established the fact that there was a certain amount of risk taken by those who washed the eggs in the water bath, both from immersing their hands in the … When an inexperienced employee is placed in charge of dangérous machinery, with the use of which he is unacquainted, it is the positive duty of the employer to instruct and properly qualify him for such new service.

McCoy v. Thresh

2004 Pa. Super. 429 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2004

Although of shorter duration, Father contends the numerous contacts and relationships established in Pennsylvania are more beneficial to the child than those established in California. … However, neither did California qualify as the child’s “home state” under Section 5344(a)(1).

Commonwealth v. Sweigart

9 Pa. Super. 455 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 1899

This we think is well established: McMicken v. Commonwealth, 58 Pa. 218 , and cases cited at p. 221; Spangler v. Com., 8 W. 57 ; Shartzer v. School District, 90 Pa. 192 ; Short v. Gilson, 107 Pa. 315 . … If, however, that was the defense relied on, the facts essential to it, ought to have been clearly and unequivocally set forth in the affidavit of defense.

In Re Complaint of Owens Against Coker

2002 Pa. Super. 332 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2002

Several cases clearly set forth the trial court’s obligations in addressing the District Attorney’s disapproval of a private criminal complaint. … R.Crim.P. 106 (establishing the procedure for handling private civil complaints).

In Re Hyman

2002 Pa. Super. 357 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2002

In particular, Appellant failed to satisfy the requirements of 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5518: To establish incapacity, the petitioner must present testimony, in person or by deposition from individuals qualified by training and experience … Although some of her fears may border on paranoia, she was clearly able to “receive and evaluate information effectively and communicate decisions[.]” 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5501.

Richmond v. McHale

2012 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2012

Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it made factual determinations of affirmative defenses consisting of qualified privilege, lack of malice and lack of harm without any rule 1030(A) pleading? … Nabisco, Inc., 32 A.3d 787 , 788 n. 2 (Pa.Super.2011) (observing that statutory immunity from suit is an affirmative defense that should be raised in new matter in a responsive pleading and should not be raised in preliminary

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.

Stoner v. Pennsylvania Fuel Supply Co.

40 Pa. Super. 599 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1909

Opinion by Beaver, J., This case was clearly for the jury. It bristled with facts seriously disputed. Was the defendant guilty of negligence? … This, as the court below clearly intimated in its reply to one of the plaintiff’s requests for charge, could not be presumed.

In re J.M.

2012 Pa. Super. 81 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2012

The president judge of the court of common pleas shall establish a restitution fund for the deposit of all contributions to the restitution fund which are received or collected. … The Juvenile Court Judges' Commission was established by the Pennsylvania Legislature in 1959.

Wall Rose Mutual Insurance v. Manross

2007 Pa. Super. 395 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2007

Darr was not living at the Manross residence on June 14, 2004 and consequently does not qualify as an “insured” under the homeowner’s policy. … Darr qualifies as an “insured” under the homeowners insurance policy issued by [Wall Rose to Esther Manross]. Trial Court Opinion, 10/3/06, at 1-2.

Commonwealth v. Celli

153 Pa. Super. 88 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1943

But in our opinion, the evidence was clearly admissible. Com. v. Visotsky, 129 Pa. Superior Ct. 86 , 195 A. 148 , and cases cited. … A juror, to be qualified, need not “eliminate everything that was said” from his mind, even though what he heard was in the court room or as a juror in another similar case. Com. v.

Com. v. Gilliam, K.

249 A.3d 257 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2021

In light of the nature of the alleged assaults, this testimony was clearly relevant. … § 9718.2(a)(1) (requiring the offender to have “previously been convicted” of a qualifying offense).

Commonwealth v. Whitman

252 Pa. Super. 66 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1977

Second, appellant’s statement qualified as an admission, an exception to the hearsay rule. Third, the admission of appellant’s remark to rebut his alibi witness was clearly permissible. … In both cases, the witness’s answer was unresponsive; in neither case was the remark elicited by the prosecution in an attempt to establish a prior record.