Case law

Woldert Grocery Co. v. Wilkinson

39 Pa. Super. 100 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1909

The general rule, in the absence of peculiar and qualifying conditions, doubtless is as contended for by the appellants: Hooper, Seving & Co. v. Carpet Co., 11 Pa. Superior Ct. 634 ; Guillon v. … The whole of the evidence clearly points to the.conclusion that the measure of these damages applied by the learned trial court and adopted by the jury was at least as favorable to the defendants as any other that could have

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

Kirsch's License

46 Pa. Super. 332 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1911

J., In their petition for retail liquor license the appellees described the place for which license was desired, as “that certain house, containing seventeen rooms, occupied last year as a mercantile establishment and apartments … In taking this appeal the appellant described himself as a resident and qualified elector of the borough. That he was such is not denied in the motion to quash.

Yates v. Yates

2008 Pa. Super. 296 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2008

. ¶ 6 In reviewing a custody order, our scope and standard of review are well established. Our standard of review over a custody order is for a gross abuse of discretion. … The trial court presided *542 over this custody dispute since 2006, and it clearly was comfortable appointing Attorney Famous as parenting coordinator.

Commonwealth v. Gray

415 Pa. Super. 77 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 1992

attorney who normally does not have the opportunity to establish so comfortable a courtroom atmosphere. … The final inquiry is to establish the precise manner in which counsel’s commission or omission prejudiced the appellant. Id. A.

Commonwealth v. Williams

2005 Pa. Super. 20 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2005

The Commonwealth now claims this history qualifies as a past pattern of violent behavior, rendering [Appellee] ineligible for an intermediate punishment sentence. … However, in that case that defendant would be clearly eligible for probation, which is a recommended standard minimum range sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. 42 Pa.

Commonwealth v. Jones

123 Pa. Super. 56 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1936

mere “racket” or scheme to obtain money; (2) whether the defendants had a bona fide intention to publish the “Police Justices Manual” for which they solicited advertisements; (3) whether they made promises of protection or immunity … The learned trial judge in an opinion dis *62 posing of defendants7 motions clearly and tersely answered this contention as follows: “All of the indictments being before the same jury, even if the suggested rule of construction

Staples v. Public Service Commission

79 Pa. Super. 6 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1922

This clearly recognizes a paramount authority in the Commonwealth to prevent discrimination or conduct inimical to the general welfare by corporations. … It is not within the capacity of the legislature in the assertion of the police power to estop a succeeding legislature from the exercise of that power although such subsequent exercise may have the effect of qualifying or

Patton, Exrx. v. Philadelphia

126 Pa. Super. 212 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1936

Patton was, in November 1927, duly elected a magistrate in and for the City and County of Philadelphia and qualified as such. His term began the first Monday in January, 1928. … As we said in the Taylor case, “Any form may be adopted which carries out the intention of the parties, provided it is established to be the voluntary act of the officer, and clearly and definitely proved to be such, and

Pennsylvania State Spiritualist Ass'n v. First Church of Spiritual Research & Healing

430 Pa. 527 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1968

In addition, Section 3 of said Constitution provides: “No modification of the form of organization, or manner of conducting business on the part of existing societies and organizations shall be required to qualify them for … These provisions clearly manifest the absence of any intent on the part of the founders of the National Association to set up a central ruling church body which would control and direct the operations of its members and dictate

Commonwealth v. Lynch

2013 Pa. Super. 218 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2013

Nevertheless, “the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty.” Id.; see also Commonwealth v. … In this regard, the facts of each case and the history between the actor and the witness will determine whether such communications, without more, qualify as “intimidation.”

Mentzer v. Ognibene

408 Pa. Super. 578 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1991

In fact, the Wilk court specifically refused to analyze this issue in any detail because the factual record before it did not clearly establish independent contractor status, which is a prerequisite to the applicability of … As in the case of Wilk, Dudash does not establish any binding precedent regarding the scope of section 411 liability.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Gaito v. Maroney

206 Pa. Super. 113 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1965

But I would like to qualify this answer also. … It is clear to me, however, that the questioning of a suspect under the circumstances described above clearly violates our sense of justice and fair play.

Verbalis v. Verbalis

206 Pa. Super. 87 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1965

Thus, as in the Boyer case, the fact of insanity was clearly before the lower court. … Indeed, if the sane spouse clearly establishes her grounds for divorce and if the rights of the incompetent spouse are protected by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court, it is difficult to see why the divorce should

Emery v. Leavesly McCollum

1999 Pa. Super. 26 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 1999

¶ 6 In reviewing the grant of summary judgment: we must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and determine whether the moving party has established that there exists no genuine issue of material … The deposition testimony of the project superintendent clearly set forth that, while each subcontractor was responsible in its limited area, Bechtel was responsible for overseeing the entire project. 3 Thus, Bechtel met the

Jago, G. v. Jago, T.

217 A.3d 289 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2019

(C) A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this subparagraph only if such order clearly specifies— (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant … not arise from a wrong; instead, that right arises out of -9- J-S26018-19 the divorce judgment itself. … [The] procedural right to entry of the proposed QDRO [i]s indisputably established

Commonwealth v. Kriegler

2015 Pa. Super. 251 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2015

Clearly, the trial court did not believe that appellant’s daughter was unable to drive due to a migraine headache. … Accordingly, the Commonwealth established that appellant was not driving within the restrictions of § 1553.

In Re Adoption of R.B.F.

2000 Pa. Super. 337 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2000

City of Erie, 553 Pa. at 363, 719 A.2d at 281 (citations omitted). ¶ 12 Appellants’ attempt at establishing a de facto family, which would qualify for adoption under Section 2903, is unavailing. … Clearly, Appellants cannot be the "spouse” of one another since the Pennsylvania legislature has outlawed same-sex marriages. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 1704. .

Commonwealth v. McDermott

94 Pa. Super. 470 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 1928

contention that the act was in conflict with Article III, section 7, forbidding the Legislature to “pass any local or special law...... granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive privilege or immunity … The Act in question is clearly a police measure, and not an arbitrary interference with the natural rights of our citizens (Art. I, Sec. 1). It is designed to remedy a real mischief.

US Bank National Assoc. v. Finkel, L.

2017 Pa. Super. 158 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2017

, the party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder.” … Thus, the documents clearly revealed that two persons were purchasing the property, only one of whom was obligated under the mortgage.