Case law

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.

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.

Carlini, S. v. Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc.

219 A.3d 629 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2019

“An abuse of discretion generally will not be found unless there is a showing of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” … The [c]ourt is confident that Michael Hall was capable and qualified to answer a basic subtraction question.

Commonwealth v. Wilson

216 Pa. Super. 203 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1970

Certainly, no motive can be shown from his mere presence at that fire, and its prejudicial effect clearly outweighed its probative value. … While a nonexpert witness may properly be qualified to state that a particular person neither did nor said anything out of the ordinary, he should not be permitted as he was here, to express an opinion as to an individual

Marion, D. v. Bryn Mawr Trust Co.

2021 Pa. Super. 18 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2021

BMT also disputes that the receiver should enjoy immunity for his actions. … Moreover, our research has revealed no authority to extend official immunity as far as Appellant suggests.

Keller v. Porta

172 Pa. Super. 651 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1953

Defendant complains that plaintiff was not qualified to testify as to the fair value of labor in the Pittsburgh, Allentown and Chicago areas. … That was clearly done by plaintiff in rebuttal and raised a question of fact for the jury which found in plaintiff’s favor.

Williams v. Susquehanna Collieries Co.

148 Pa. Super. 540 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1942

Whether such connection between the deceased’s injury and death was established depends upon the expert medical testimony. … We are of the opinion that the testimony to which we have referred was clearly sufficient in quality and quantity to support the findings and the award in this case.

Philadelphia v. St. Elizabeth's Church

45 Pa. Super. 363 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1911

Commissioners of Erie Co., 85 Pa. 288 , Chief Justice Agnew discusses the constitutional provision thus: "And not content with a single qualifying expression, it prefixed the word actual— ‘ an actual place of religious worship … The word stated means fixed, established, occurring at regular times, as, stated hours of business. So, statedly means at certain times, not occasionally.

Selective Way Ins. Co. v. MAK services, Inc.

2020 Pa. Super. 103 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2020

Nixon, 682 A.2d 1310, 1314 (Pa.Super. 1996) (holding that a reservation of rights letter sent two months after a potentially qualifying accident adequately reserved the right to raise a policy exclusion). … which would result in non- coverage as in establishing facts showing the insured’s non-liability.”).

Haydenville Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Steffler

17 Pa. Super. 609 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1901

It was clearly a question of fact as the court correctly held in refusing the defendants’ point and was for the jury. … The controlling questions, however, were fairly and clearly stated with sufficient reference to and recital of the evidence to enable the jury to understand them.

Cordes v. Associates of Internal Medicine

2014 Pa. Super. 52 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2014

Majors, created a sufficient risk of partiality to establish prejudice per se arising from his jury service. 12 Absent any clearly countervailing principles in our case law, Mr. … The dissent rejects this characterization, maintaining that "Fellin, in his capacity as a designated representative of the corporation at trial, clearly qualified as a case participant because of his status as a party’s authorized

Weiley v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

2012 Pa. Super. 106 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2012

Moreover, we agree with the trial judge that School has immunity under the Pennsylvania Anatomical Gift Act. … Again, Weiley points to no conduct on the part of School that would prohibit application of this immunity provision.

Commonwealth v. McIvor

448 Pa. Super. 98 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1996

We thus established a distinction between the expectation of privacy and the expectation of non-interception. … Thus, the communications recorded by appellant do qualify as “oral communications” under the Wiretap Act. 5 The setting of this case clearly distinguishes it from the interview/interrogation atmosphere of Henlenz Oral interrogations

Commonwealth v. Kennedy

413 Pa. Super. 95 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1992

Under § 2216, the Act establishes that every county children and youth social service agency shall establish a “child protective service” within each agency. … The court in PAAR recognized only a qualified privilege of confidentiality for rape crisis counsel- or records, and therefore balanced this qualified privilege against defendant’s constitutional rights and established an

In the Int. of: A.C., Appeal of: D.C.

2020 Pa. Super. 203 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2020

The Legislature has determined that the likelihood clearly established abuse has occurred, other than at the hands of the custodian, is so small that prima facie evidence the custodian has caused the injury … The trial court’s adjudication of dependency was clearly supported by its finding of abuse versus Mother. See Interest of I.R.-R., supra.

McFeeley, L. v. Shah, S.

2020 Pa. Super. 3 · 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).

Fox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

322 Pa. Super. 96 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1983

Similar logic compels the conclusion that claimants qualifying under the decisions in Heffner and Freeze as parties who may rightfully claim work loss benefits under the Act, must likewise bear the burden of proving to a … It appears that nearly every material fact is as yet still the subject of genuine dispute and that neither party is as yet clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Com. v. Clemat, P.

218 A.3d 944 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2019

Furthermore, [Pa.R.E.] 704 clearly permits both expert and lay opinion testimony on issues that ultimately must be decided by the trier of fact, in this case, the jury. … In the case sub judice, the record establishes that the prosecutor’s line of hypothetical questions to Detective Zech was based on competent evidence presented at trial.

Webb v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC

2016 Pa. Super. 203 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2016

The purpose of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is to establish minimum performance standards for automotive safety; they do not establish the standard of conduct required under the common law. … It just says that there’s evidence of compliance, the purpose is to establish a minimum performance.

Stewart v. General Accident Insurance

35 Pa. Super. 120 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1907

If the statement was to be regarded as qualified, the qualification must necessarily have been added. … We are clearly of opinion that the several offers of evidence presented by the defendant should have been received and, if the testimony had risen to the level of the offers, there could have been no binding instructions