Case law

Commonwealth v. Manivannan

186 A.3d 472 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2018

See Declaration by Custodian or Other Qualified Person Pursuant to Pa.R.E. 902(11): Domestic Records of Regularly Conducted Activity, 4/18/16. … expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; - 20 - J-A04043-18 (b) helpful to clearly

Plewes v. Lancaster

171 Pa. Super. 312 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1952

The applicable principle is' clearly and admirably stated in Garvin v. Pittsburgh, supra, 161 Pa. … In conclusion it is our considered judgment that plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence was not so clearly established that fair and reasonable persons could not disagree as to its existence and that it was, therefore

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.

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.

Priester's Estate

23 Pa. Super. 386 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1903

The subject was clearly within the powerofthe testator, and the will should be executed in accordance with such intention if that be lawful. … The testator intended a distribution of her estate different from that established by the intestate law, as indicated by the fact that she made a will, and that she gave a legacy to a grandchild not entitled thereto under

Walsh v. Philadelphia School District

144 Pa. Super. 321 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 1940

Chief Justice Kephart, the Supreme Court said ( 329 Pa. 213 , at page 228, 197 A. 344 , at page 353) : “But the contract which the school teachers have with the State is a qualified contract. … But neither the contract clause of the Constitution of the United States (art. 1, §10, cl. 1) nor that of the Constitution of this Commonwealth (art. 1, §17) has rendered those undertakings immune to change at the hands of

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.

Trout v. Altoona & Logan Valley Electric Railway Co.

13 Pa. Super. 17 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1900

The undisputed testimony of the plaintiff’s driver clearly establishes the fact of his contributory negligence. … In this review of the case it was error in the court to qualify the defendant’s eleventh point, and after the question was entirely within its control under the point reserved, it was error to enter judgment in favor of the

Commonwealth v. Rose

172 A.3d 1121 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2017

Therefore, Detective Frei was not qualified to testify to the meaning of the conversations as a lay witness. … Means, 773 A.2d 143, 157 (Pa. 2001) (it is well-established that jurors are presumed to follow instructions).

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. R.P.S.

1999 Pa. Super. 171 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1999

That interview unquestionably establishes that L.T. has the ability to understand questions and frame somewhat appropriate answers. The child also clearly understood the difference between the truth and a lie. … Our review of the record, however, establishes that Dr. Shienvold was qualified to evaluate the child and determine whether he was capable of remembering the abuse.

Commonwealth v. Watson

2017 Pa. Super. 59 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2017

Super. 2008) (en banc), this Court addressed the issue of whether, notwithstanding mandatory DUI penalties, the sentencing court retains the discretion to impose CIP in qualified programs for qualified … monitored by the Mercer County Intermediate Punishment Program [CIP] if [Williams] qualifies[.]”

Moore v. McComsey

313 Pa. Super. 264 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 1983

His contention is clearly incorrect. There is no federal statute of limitations applicable to civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … The Supreme Court held that public defenders are not entitled to immunity and may be subject to civil liability for malpractice in Reese v. Danforth, 486 Pa. 479 , 406 A.2d 735 (1979).

Smith v. Penbridge Associates, Inc.

440 Pa. Super. 410 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1995

“The standard of review for an order denying a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court clearly and palpably abused its discretion or committed an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.” … Here, the record indisputably establishes that appellant expressly and unambiguously contracted to sell appellees a “proven breeder pair” of emus.

Commonwealth v. Dengler

2004 Pa. Super. 38 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2004

Conversely, astrology and lie detector test results are not admissible despite the fact that they have been around for many years and cannot qualify as “new.” … As the majority said in Track, “Clearly, however, our supreme court did not intend that trial courts be required to apply the Frye standard every time scientific experts are called to render an opinion at trial, a result

Linde, E. v. Linde, S.

210 A.3d 1083 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 2019

“Specific performance should only be granted where the facts clearly establish the plaintiff’s right thereto, where no adequate remedy at law exists, and where justice requires it.” Id. (quoting Clark v. … Failure to imply this missing term would clearly destroy or injure Eric’s right to receive the fruits of the contract.” Id. at 12-13.

Commonwealth v. Schultz

168 Pa. Super. 435 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1951

The removal of the machines, which Avere thirty inches by four inches, by defendants was clearly possible; in one instance by concealment under Dominic’s overcoat, and in the other by putting the machine put of the washroom … The consent to enter such building is Only a qualified one — a consent to enter for proper purposes: 'Whatever felony'is committed in the building is separate and distinct from the felonious'entry. Com. ex rel.

Shoemaker v. Shoemaker

199 Pa. Super. 61 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 1962

The confession is corroborated when there is evidence which adds weight or credibility to the confession by establishing additional and confirming facts. … It is evident, we think, that indignities which have been endured by a spouse and have clearly and definitely ceased do not permit that spouse to thereafter commit adultery or indignities with immunity.

Trach v. Fellin

2003 Pa. Super. 53 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2003

Assuming the expert is properly qualified to testify, as Dr. … Finding the experts’ opinions as to causation admissible, the Ferebee court opined: Thus, a cause-effect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies before a doctor can testify that,