Case law

Wimer v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund

2005 Pa. Super. 36 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2005

Clearly, the trial court intended this Order to constitute a declaration of the parties’ rights. … PEBTF asserts that Wimer’s accident occurred while PEBTF was an ERISA-qualified plan.

Commonwealth v. Cortez

860 A.2d 1045 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2004

. ¶ 13 Even were there an abuse of discretion, we do not believe that Cortez has established prejudice. … The Supreme Court held that the evidence from the robbery was relevant to establish the identity of the person who shot the deceased.

Bilec v. Auburn & Associates, Inc. Pension Trust

403 Pa. Super. 176 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1991

The appelleeemployer established a company-run, in-house administered employee pension plan in 1953. … Section I of the IPG provides that a person can acquire a vested inactive status upon termination if he qualifies under Section XII.

Commonwealth v. Colon

264 Pa. Super. 314 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1979

Initially, it is clear that the marshall qualified to serve as an expert witness. Mr. … The first of these is undisputed and the second established by expert testimony. Taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence conclusively establishes the third.

Penn-Harris Hotel Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

166 Pa. Super. 394 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1950

Penn-Harris is qualified to litigate the questions herein raised. It utilizes Bell’s semi-public branch exchange service. … Clearly the definition does not cover contracts, such as here involved, which relate to services rendered to the utility and for which the utility expends money.

Leed v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund

128 Pa. Super. 572 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1937

Proof of impairment of vision is not sufficient to establish industrial loss of an eye. … Jarka Corp., 314 Pa. 148, 153 , 171 A. 468 , points out very clearly that if hospital records are admissible in evidence, three probative elements must be present: (1) they must be made contemporaneously with the acts which

Jadwin v. Hurley

10 Pa. Super. 104 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1899

Cumberland County, 162 Pa. 55 , it was held that an • act enabling borough councils through the different counties of the state to establish boards of health repealed an earlier special act relating to the establishment of … The provisions of this act clearly show that it is a general one intended to apply to the whole state.

Commonwealth v. Kebort

26 Pa. Super. 584 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 1904

which it proposes to deal, the scope of the act is not limited nor the validity of the title impaired except as to such portions of the general subject as legislators and others would naturally and reasonably be led by the qualifying … This is the rule established by all our cases. . . .

Commonwealth v. Bey

841 A.2d 562 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2004

The same section defines predatory acts to those which are “directed at a stranger or at a person with whom a relationship has been established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization.” … Finally, we opined that even if the expert’s testimony was taken as true, Krouse did not qualify as an SVP because several statutory factors weighed against such a finding.

Erie County Office of Juvenile Probation v. Schroeck

721 A.2d 799 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1998

We have concluded that the legislature clearly established a statutory action for “cost of care and support” of a child placed in a residential setting pursuant to the Juvenile Act. … Adams County Juvenile Probation qualifies as a public agency having the requisite interest in the subject children.

Com. v. Smith, M.

320 A.3d 691 · 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.

Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo

2013 Pa. Super. 270 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2013

We cannot determine that a delay of approximately three months qualifies as substantial prejudice on its own. … [[Image here]] The Commonwealth has not established that it would be substantially prejudiced if Appellant were to withdraw his guilty plea.

Kovach v. Central Trucking, Inc.

2002 Pa. Super. 313 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2002

We may only reverse upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. … That an expert may, at some point during his testimony, qualify his assertion does not necessarily render his opinion inadmissibly speculative. Cohen v.

Donoghue v. O'Kane

55 Pa. Super. 11 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1913

From this the record, it clearly appears that the supplemental affidavit of defense was filed in this office of the prothonotary and duly docketed with the other papers in the case the day before the call on the rule, but … This was established in regard to a supplemental affidavit as long ago as 1836, in West v.

In re J.C.

2010 Pa. Super. 150 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2010

Did the trial court err in finding that it was clearly necessary to commit the child to the Department of Human Services? Grandmother’s brief at 4. … As a relative, Grandmother could qualify for custody of child under section 6351(a)(2)(i), but based upon the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Grandmother was not qualified to receive

Commonwealth v. Stanley

427 Pa. Super. 422 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1993

we find that the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce testimony that the test was given and further erred in instructing the jury that the test could be considered, even for the limited purpose of establishing … These observations, combined with the officer’s testimony that he saw appellant run a red light, clearly are sufficient to convict on the charge of DUI/incapable of safe driving. See Commonwealth v.

Shuman Estate v. Weber

276 Pa. Super. 209 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1980

To uphold the jury’s verdict in the present case, we must find sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a master-servant or employer-employee relationship between Mertz and Weber and to establish that Weber was acting … There is no doubt that this *220 accident, occurring at about 4:15 a. m., cannot qualify as being within any authorized time limits.

Eberhardt v. Shaler Township

127 Pa. Super. 477 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1937

J., The Township of Shaler, Allegheny County, a township of the first class, on May 29, 1931 adopted an ordinance for the establishment of a sewer district and the construction of a trunk line and lateral sanitary sewers. … That is, you need to determine which of these witnesses is best qualified to express an opinion as to the benefits accruing to this property as a result of this sewer being there.”

Arch v. Slovene National Benefit Society

156 Pa. Super. 64 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 1944

Appellant argues that the plaintiff has made admissions in the reply which establish that plaintiff has no cause of action, and by construing all the pleadings together, the court should hold, as a matter of law, that judgment … But the implications of a failure to traverse are not identical with a clearly stated admission.

Commonwealth v. Morgan

2011 Pa. Super. 59 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2011

He also agreed that Appellant’s behavior clearly escalated. … Valli-ere was not required to explicitly say that Appellant would reoffend in order to. qualify him as an SVP.