Case law

In re K.C.F.

2007 Pa. Super. 178 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2007

Shienvold was qualified to testify as an expert witness in the instant case. … Shienvold was qualified to testify as an expert here. See McClain, supra.

Jago, G. v. Jago, T.

2019 Pa. Super. 246 · 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

Com. v. Williams, J.

245 A.3d 710 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2021

Jury Trial, 3/12/19, 163-64, or his motion to grant Olexovitch immunity to testify. See N.T. Pre-Trial Hearing, 3/4/19, at 102-08. … I believe, and they will argue if they choose, that that somehow establishes the identity of the owner of the T-shirt to [sic] Joseph Williams.

Commonwealth v. Nugent

315 Pa. Super. 493 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1983

According to appellant, this section clearly, albeit impliedly, authorizes only the weighing of a single object on one scale. … Secondly, and most importantly, additional qualifications were elicited which established Sergeant Franklin’s expert status.

Commonwealth v. Helms

234 Pa. Super. 537 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1975

The Legislature clearly limited the immunity granted to communications carriers to those activities done “in connection with” the construction, maintenance or operation of the system. … The monitoring in this case continued long after the location, identity and method of the trespasser were clearly established.

Metzgar v. Lycoming Township

39 Pa. Super. 602 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1909

But that case clearly *606 refers to surface water and it is not controlling as to natural streams of water. … That a municipality is not liable in trespass for an error of judgment of the supervisors in planning a system of sewers for draining the streets is established by that case and many others.

Sharon Borough v. Pennsylvania Co.

44 Pa. Super. 526 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 1910

In sec. 12 of that act the legislature carefully qualified the general right given to companies organized under it to construct their lines across public highways. … construct the said road (railroad) across such established road or way as not to impede the passage or transportation of persons or property along the same.”

Leitz v. Hohman

16 Pa. Super. 276 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1901

The court committed no error in this regard and the verdict of the jury has established the fact that the defendant uttered the words with the meaning ascribed to them. … Especially would this be true if, as the defendant alleged, he qualified his utterance of the defamatory words by the statement that he was repeating what was told him.

Dorris's Estate

63 Pa. Super. 345 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1916

No one denies the soundness of the proposition that where a. person legally qualified to make a will under-' takes to exercise that privilege, the law raises the presumption that he intended to dispose of all of his property … Must we not conclude therefore that during the time when the disposition of his income made by the testator was to last, every part of it had been clearly and fully disposed of?

Commonwealth v. Kelley

444 Pa. Super. 377 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1995

Immune judges.... A warrant for Appellant’s arrest was issued by a district justice on August 20,1993. Appellant was arrested that same day and was charged with two counts of terroristic threats. … The trial court clearly stated these factors on the record at sentencing, and in its opinion succinctly stated the gravamen of the crime and the necessity for the sentence imposed, including long-term supervision of Appellant

Crimlisk v. Philco Corp.

162 Pa. Super. 162 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1947

After one week it clearly appeared that he was wholly incapable of doing any work, and on December 5, 1944, claimant petitioned to have the final receipt set aside. … Gordy, a well-qualified neurologist, was the expert appointed by the board. From his findings and the history of claimant’s prior physical condition, as disclosed by hospital records and other evidence, Dr.

Likins's Petition

37 Pa. Super. 625 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1908

governor, is clearly shown by the title to and body of.the act. … To establish a civil service system, etc., and the third and fourth items above quoted.

Commonwealth v. Yocolano

2017 Pa. Super. 261 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2017

Wecht, M.D., who opined about the cause and manner of A.A.’s injuries.3 The Commonwealth’s motion claimed that Appellant did not establish that Dr. Wecht qualified as an expert. … Our Supreme Court concluded that the “close similarity between these assaults” was admissible to establish a common scheme, plan or design.

Chenot v. A.P. Green Services, Inc.

2006 Pa. Super. 52 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2006

Thus, Mentzer supports immunity from liability for Kop-pers as the employer of an independent contractor, where the negligence of the independent contractor or its employees causes the injury. 6 ¶ 20 Even assuming there are … They recognize that the owner who has entrusted the responsibility for the work to a qualified contractor justifiably depends upon the contractor’s expertise.

Koscavage v. Glen Alden Coal Co.

152 Pa. Super. 158 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1943

PS §296, which provides: “Any person or persons who shall knowingly or wil-fully ......handle without proper authority, or disturb any machinery or cars......shall be guilty of an off ense against this Aot.i” 1 The facts established … In its opinion, the board concluded: “From this, it would appear that the decedent was invested with authority to operate the motor, if he felt qualified and competent to do so.” (Italics supplied).

Commonwealth v. Tanchyn

200 Pa. Super. 148 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1963

It is on this bedrock that this Court has established the concept of due process. The blood test procedure has become routine in our everyday life. … And the more so since the test likewise may establish innocence, thus affording protection against the treachery of judgment based on one or more of the senses.

Commonwealth v. Dehart

1999 Pa. Super. 104 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 1999

will not apply. 3 Appellant, however, failed to demonstrate, or even allege, on appeal that his case qualifies under any of the exceptions to the timeliness requirement. … As previously noted, the partial record before this court does not contain a copy of appellant’s PCRA petition, and thus, we cannot clearly ascertain the substance of appellant’s complaints.

Commonwealth v. Thomas

1999 Pa. Super. 301 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 1999

their use to establish prior convictions for crimes of violence under § 9714, which imposes a less severe penalty. … Thus, “[i]t is clearly the intent of the Legislature that a child who continues his pattern of serious and violent anti-social activity into adulthood should not receive the benefit of a cloak of immunity regarding that behavior

Hirsch v. EPL Technologies, Inc.

2006 Pa. Super. 293 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2006

from suing Devine under the WPCL because Hirsch’s actual job duties qualified him as an employer under the WPCL. … Nothing Devine sets forth in support of his second claim alters this finding. 8 Although Devine urges us to disregard credibility determinations made by Judge Nagle, such action is clearly not our function.

Varner v. Classic Communities Corp.

2006 Pa. Super. 2 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2006

We concluded that the claim against the dental practice “clearly seeks damages for negligence arising in the context of professional dental treatment, and, as such, requires expert testimony to establish both the standard … Plaintiffs also claimed that they had a meritorious claim against Barton, intended to provide a qualified expert to establish that Barton deviated from “acceptable professional standards,” and that it would be inequitable