Case law

Branham v. Rohm and Haas Co.

2011 Pa. Super. 78 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2011

The argument that as a non-resident Dow is per se immune from subpoena is misguided and does not merit relief. … Similarly, Dow’s argument that is should be immune from discovery as a non-party merits no relief. Absent a specific assertion of privilege, non-party status per se affords no immunity from the service of a subpoena.

Burrell, B. v. Streamlight, Inc.

222 A.3d 1137 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2019

Defendant therefore clearly had the right to direct and control the -8- J-A24037-19 work that Plaintiff was performing when he was injured. … Aerotek-Streamlight Personnel Agreement ¶1(b); Burrell Dep. at 32-38, 42-43.2 Because the undisputed facts established that Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer under the WCA and was therefore immune from tort liability

Williams, T. v. The GEO Group, Inc.

2022 Pa. Super. 148 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2022

Thus, they did not qualify as “experts retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation,” as specified under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5(a)(3). … Additionally, the autopsy can help establish what institutional policies and protocols were and were not followed surrounding the [D]ecedent’s suicide.

Commonwealth v. Smith

201 Pa. Super. 511 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1963

The search and the seizure in the present case were clearly reasonable under the federal decisions. … Smith’s invitation was clearly a waiver of his right. Com. v. Gockley, 411 Pa. 437, 446 , 192 A. 2d 693 .

Commonwealth v. Gable

171 Pa. Super. 468 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1952

In the instant case, a reading of the entire record clearly establishes that defense counsel was given wide latitude and abundant opportunity to interrogate the witness Narr to test his veracity. … The record clearly establishes that defense counsel interrogated this witness and was able to portray to the jury precisely the nature of the witness’s character so that the jury was under no misapprehension as to possible

Commonwealth v. Cotto

708 A.2d 806 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 1998

The legislature may restrict or qualify this right, but in doing so, must observe constitutional due process and avoid a classification scheme that is arbitrary or discriminatory. See Kent v. … The Pennsylvania Juvenile Act does not provide immunity to a juvenile testifying at his transfer hearing.

Bester v. Essex Crane Rental Corp.

422 Pa. Super. 178 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1993

It tests the legal sufficiency of the challenged complaint and will be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Mudd v. … Payne, 217 Pa. 252 , 66 A. 553 (1907) that words of general import cannot establish an agreement to indemnify. Ruzzi held the drafters of the indemnification agreement to the level of specificity established in Peny.

In re Reglan Litigation

2013 Pa. Super. 216 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2013

Three of the officers sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, arguing that the plaintiff could point to no evidence that they had beaten him or were present while others did so. … While Wyeth attempts to recast its issue on appeal as purely a legal one, we find that, as in Johnson , we are not dealing with the application of clearly established law to a given set of facts.

Mosley v. Observer Publishing Co.

422 Pa. Super. 255 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1993

Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 360, 372 , 490 A.2d 402, 408 (1985): A demurrer can only be sustained where the complaint is clearly insufficient to establish the pleader’s right to relief. Firing v. … Appellee urges this Court to affirm the order of the trial court because he is immune by reason of well established absolute privileges, specifically, the absolute privilege accorded to communications in a judicial proceeding

Amato, T. v. Bell & Gossett

116 A.3d 607 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2015

The Uniform Contribution Among Tort-feasors Act (“UCATA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8321-8327, establishes a framework for accounting for settlement payments made by joint tortfeasors. … Here, Crane failed to (1) join other settling tortfeasors into the action or (2) submit evidence to establish that the non-parties were joint tortfeasors.

Com. v. Lehman, R.

231 A.3d 877 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2020

-5- J-A29018-19 The burden of proof under the Drug Overdose Response Immunity Act is not on the Commonwealth; rather, the defendant must establish that he is entitled to … if the person can establish the following . . .”).

Coffman, S. v. Kline, D.

2017 Pa. Super. 241 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2017

Thus, the language contained within these provisions clearly and unambiguously establishes complementary means to achieve the Act’s goal of ensuring the collection of support arrears. Campbell, supra. … Having determined that Sedgwick is not protected by the immunity provision contained in § 4308.1, we consider whether Mother met her burden of proof to establish civil contempt.

Commonwealth v. Daniels

280 Pa. Super. 278 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1980

Snelick was not properly immunized to give testimony. The appellant lacks standing to raise this issue. Commonwealth v. … An expert witness may be qualified in several different ways. An expert may acquire his knowledge through occupational, practical or other experiential training.

Commonwealth v. Burton

2007 Pa. Super. 319 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2007

Burton’s trial counsel questioned Williams about the immunity hearing at the time of trial. … The letter was attached to Williams’ response to the Commonwealth’s petition seeking immunity, as well as to the transcript of the immunity hearing held on November 12, 1970.

Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P.

2009 Pa. Super. 202 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2009

In its subsequent Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion the trial court explained the bank account was neither exempt under Pa.R.C.P. 3123.1 (Claim for Exemption or Immunity of Property. … CASPA § 505, however, clearly mandates the inception and continuation of statutory interest post-default until payment, and, therefore, qualifies as an exception to § 8101.

Heimbach v. Heimbach

401 Pa. Super. 119 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1991

facts of this case clearly show that Mrs. … It is now established that the “dual capacity” doctrine is inapplicable where an employee’s compensable injury occurs while the employee is performing his or her job. Lewis, supra 517 Pa. at 475-77 , 538 A.2d at 869 .

Lascio v. Belcher Roofing Corp.

704 A.2d 642 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1997

Its purpose is to protect employees by establishing quick and certain compensation for work-related injuries and resultant loss of earnings without wasting *645 time and expenses on litigation. Wagner v. … Fairly read, this argument is actually an attack on Barclay-White’s ability to meet the first element of the statutory employer defense, specifically, whether Barclay-White qualifies as “an employer” with respect to Samuel

Commonwealth v. Rodriguez

2013 Pa. Super. 302 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2013

Therefore, to qualify for exemption, Appellant’s vehicle must be a “government vehicle.” See 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524(e)(2)(i). … See Brief for Appellant 1-11; see also N.T. at 44-45 (Appellant’s attorney stating that Appellant’s only defense is his alleged immunity).

Bloom v. DuBois Regional Medical Center

409 Pa. Super. 83 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1991

Clearly, as the trial court found and as appellants concede, Section 7114(a) would render Dr. Fugate immune from a suit for simple negligence arising out of his treatment of Mrs. Bloom. See note 1, supra. … This was clearly established in Mazzagatti v. Everingham, 512 Pa. 266 , 516 A.2d 672 (1986). In Mazzagatti , the court rejected the claim of a mother whose daughter was fatally struck by an automobile.

Elite Care, RX v. Premier Comp Solutions

296 A.3d 29 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2023

As stated above, the WCA establishes the exclusive forum for resolution of both payment disputes and alleged mismanagement of workers’ compensation claims. … Workers’ compensation judges are uniquely qualified to make such decisions due to their expertise in the area of workers’ compensation law.