Case law

Bindschusz v. Phillips

2001 Pa. Super. 93 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2001

The evidence established that other physicians and practitioners worldwide rely on the work of this specialty group of which Dr. Wu is a member. The evidence established that Dr. … A witness may qualify as an expert if his or her experience or education logically or fundamentally embraces the matter at issue. Dambacher by Dambacher v.

Shepard v. Temple University

2008 Pa. Super. 93 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2008

Shepard’s “sole substantive claim ... is that she believes she was qualified for tenure at Temple and disagrees with Temple’s decision.... Given that [Dr. … The record established in this case refutes this claim. In fact, in her deposition testimony, Dr.

Marcinak v. Southeastern Greene School District

375 Pa. Super. 486 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1988

The trial court determined that the critical clause in the Appellant’s employment contract was not ambiguous, as its meaning could be clearly determined by the application of a well-established principle of contract construction … enunciated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in In Re Alloy Manufacturing Company Employees Trust, 411 Pa. 492 , 192 A.2d 394 (1963), provides that specific provisions of a written contract ordinarily will be regarded as qualifying

Commonwealth v. Eyster

401 Pa. Super. 477 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1991

Pursuant to Mourar and Wolfe, supra, this Court held a defendant must have been sentenced for a prior crime before the current crime was committed in order for the earlier crime to qualify for enhancement of a prior record … A brief analysis of the sentencing procedure will point clearly to the defect which requires vacation of the sentence and remand.

Pollard & Brant, Inc. v. Stein

81 Pa. Super. 374 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1923

It seems to be well settled that it is poor practice to open a judgment to establish a defense which has originated since the rendition of it. “To a judgment there can be no set-off of a debt not in judgment. … This broad statement, however, must be qualified in this respect that when the subject-matter of defense is attached to the judgment or to the consideration on which it rests, the court under its equitable powers will entertain

Cigna v. Exec. Risk Indemnity and Nutmeg Ins.

2015 Pa. Super. 43 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2015

In affirming, the Second Circuit concluded, “Based on our review of the record as a whole, we conclude that the district court did not err—much less clearly err—in determining that the plaintiffs established “a basis for … qualify as fraudulent under Pennsylvania law.

In the Int. of: S.A.S., Appeal of: DHS

305 A.3d 1039 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2023

[W]e may only reverse upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. … Therefore, although we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to qualify Dr. Miller as an expert child abuse pediatrician, DHS has failed to establish prejudice.

Com. v. Montalvo-Rivera, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2025

Sanchez, and in support thereof, adduced testimony from several witnesses establishing that Appellant had previously threatened to kill Ms. Sanchez. … Therefore, we find that the Commonwealth clearly adduced sufficient evidence to carry their burden, and Appellant’s first issue merits no relief.

Commonwealth of Pa. v. Powers

110 Pa. Super. 319 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1933

That he is a duly qualified voter of said precinct. % That Ferdinand Dizro was registered as a voter in said precinct on the 8th day of October, A. D. 1932. 3. … Appellant’s contention can not be more clearly answered than in the language of Judge Orlady in Com. v. Wilson, 44 Pa.

Carlino East Brandywine v. Brandywine Village

260 A.3d 179 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2021

Further, we would conclude the order denying preliminary objections to strike Carlino’s new matter does not qualify as a collateral order subject to interlocutory review. … The Court clearly looked to see how the appellant framed his issues within his petition to determine the extent of the in-issue waiver.

Commonwealth v. Sutton

51 Pa. Super. 191 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1912

The learned judge of the court below, in qualifying the points submitted by the defendant, properly instructed the jury as to the principles governing the right of self-defense arising under the evidence in this case. … The defendant contended that certain testimony of the *195 prosecutor was clearly at variance with the established facts and submitted points, in various.forms, requesting the court to charge the jury that if they found the

Jordan, E. v. PSU

276 A.3d 751 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2022

Based on the foregoing, Appellant’s recusal claim was clearly time-barred and its denial by the trial court was warranted. … University Defendants referred Plaintiff to qualified physicians, athletic trainers, and medical providers.

Pilchesky v. Gatelli

2011 Pa. Super. 3 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2011

supporting his first question presented, Appellant contends that the trial court ordered disclosure of the identity of six John Doe defendants, in *447 violation of their First Amendment rights, absent sufficient evidence to establish … In concluding that the issue implicated by Appellant’s argument qualifies as an issue entitled to collateral review, the Majority states, “It is precisely the type of question previously accepted by our Supreme Court in [

Commonwealth v. Griffith

2009 Pa. Super. 120 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2009

Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate all elements of the crimes for which Appellant was convicted, particularly 75 Pa.C.S.A. 3802(D)(2), given the fact that no qualified or competent testimony … Id. at 9 (“Clearly the evidence presented with respect to Appellant’s driving suggests that she was unable to exercise judgment, to deliberate or to react prudently to changing circumstances and conditions.

Scheafer v. Iron City Sand Co.

31 Pa. Super. 476 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1906

enough, within well-known and established conditions, it must answer for any injury resulting from a breach of that duty. … The owner of a building in a populous city is permitted, ex necessitate, to excavate the ground under the sidewalk and make an opening in the latter to enable him to utilize the space so obtained and thus qualify, to a degree

King v. Grannis

29 Pa. Super. 367 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1905

The contest was clearly defined in the points submitted for instructions to the jury. The defendants’ third one was as follows: “Said plaintiff must clearly prove that both Myra Grannis and H. J. … The proposition that fraud must be proved, and is never to be presumed, can be admitted only in a qualified and very limited sense.

In Re Estate of Geniviva

450 Pa. Super. 54 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1996

The Orphans’ Court found that the executor, “who testified that he hired an accountant to prepare his own income tax returns, was clearly aware of the duty of all citizens to pay taxes----” Memorandum Opinion and Decree, … Thus, we conclude that the executor’s reliance on counsel does not provide him with immunity to the surcharge in this instance.

Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Boiler Erection & Repair Co.

2008 Pa. Super. 280 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2008

There was no consistent or credible evidence to establish that Mr. … In order to establish immunity under the Workers' Compensation Act, the defendant is required to establish that her act or omission occurred while she was in the ‘same employ’ as the plaintiff, that is, in the course of her

McAndrew v. Scranton Republican Publishing Co.

165 Pa. Super. 276 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1949

without either the allegation or proof of special damages, unless excused by the defense of truth or privilege, and as to these defenses the burden is clearly upon the defendant . . . … The immunity of a privileged communication is the exception, and he who relies upon an exception must prove all the facts necessary to bring himself within it: Collins v. The Morning News Co., 6 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Cotter

55 Pa. Super. 554 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1914

Much of it is not disputed or so clearly established as to warrant the conclusion that it could not be successfully overcome. … It is true he explained his action with reference to this subscription by saying that he intended the stock to be held for the use of such persons as might thereafter be induced to take ‘it to the end that they would be qualified