Case law

Commonwealth v. Kaminsky

206 Pa. Super. 480 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1965

A condition precedent to this transfer procedure was that appellant agree to abide by the terms of parole established by New York and Maryland. … Furthermore, retaining the state’s supervision over the prisoner’s activities, wherever he may go, is clearly helpful, both to the public and the prisoner.

Commonwealth v. Eberhardt

164 Pa. Super. 591 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1949

It clearly appears that the acts of intercourse were by force and without complainant’s consent. … Other evidence in the record establishes these two elements-of the crime charged.

Bonawits v. Bonawits

2006 Pa. Super. 238 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2006

The record clearly shows that each [party] consented to the divorce. In addition, the parties have inquired how their continued marital status [affects] their personal income taxes. … Using the lower court’s logic, one party having sufficient economic assets would qualify as compelling circumstances.

In Re Estate of Liscio

432 Pa. Super. 440 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1994

of success under the governing case law, because she considered her claim to be valid and because she pursued her legal remedy in good faith, her actions failed to rise to the level of “vexatious” conduct sufficient to qualify … California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963) (establishing a defendant’s right to counsel throughout the appellate process).

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.

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.

Commonwealth v. Lehman

166 Pa. Super. 181 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1949

However, even if it be conceded that this testimony was insufficient in itself to establish identity, yet it was admissible and competent on that question, in conjunction with other evidence connecting this appellant with … And a microscopic examination of them by an expert, qualified to express an opinion, disclosed the presence on both blades of bits of copper, fabric and tarry material, identical with that of the insulated telephone wires

Commonwealth v. McKinley

181 Pa. Super. 610 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1956

Defendant contends the trial judge erred in failing to qualify the child witness by interrogating her on her understanding of the obligation to tell the truth. … Defendant’s counsel had the right to request that the witness be further qualified if not satisfied as to her competency.

Commonwealth v. Blackham

2006 Pa. Super. 270 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2006

Furthermore, there is no requirement obligating the trial court to inform Appellant that the Commonwealth would be represented by qualified attorneys. ¶ 15 We hold that Appellant was not entitled to counsel on her summary … While Rule 2119(a) prevents this Court from addressing arguments that are not clearly defined, we recognize that Appellant proceeds pro se while contending that she should have been provided counsel.

In the Int. of: D.L.D.

2025 Pa. Super. 231 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2025

In carefully reviewing the record, I conclude that the evidence is sufficient to establish the second element. … However, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Dr.

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).

Donegal Mutual Insurance v. Raymond

2006 Pa. Super. 105 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 2006

The standard of review is clear: we will reverse an order only where the trial court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. Atcovitz v. … During that "time,” the facts clearly show [Appellee] was being cared for and protected by the Deckers and CYS was fully apprised of the situation.

Hunter v. Hunter

169 Pa. Super. 498 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1951

In so holding however we do not intend in any way to qualify what we said in Com. v. Clark, 123 Pa. … The rule at common law, re-established by statute in Pennsylvania (Act of May 23,1887, P.

Commonwealth v. Pugh

2014 Pa. Super. 221 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2014

Evidence 702 which states: If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge beyond that possessed by a layperson will - assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified … Therefore, even if the first two prongs have been established, a defendant must establish that he was prejudiced by the failure to disclose. See Commonwealth v. Appel, 547 Pa. 171 , 689 A.2d 891 (1997).

Klischer v. Nationwide Life Insurance

281 Pa. Super. 292 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1980

HOFFMAN, Judge: Appellant, Nationwide Insurance Company, contends that the lower court erred in: (1) concluding that appellant had the burden of establishing the insured’s awareness and understanding of an exclusionary clause … While we did reach a contrary result in Miller , we did not overrule or otherwise qualify our opinion expressed two years earlier in Hionis , Instead, we distinguished the two cases, as the closing passage from Miller clearly

DiLucido v. Terminix International, Inc.

450 Pa. Super. 393 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1996

As the order from which this appeal was taken was entered on September 28,1995, this case is clearly within the purview of the new and amended rules. … Accordingly, in order to qualify as a collateral order, the instant order must satisfy all three factors in the above definition.

Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Board of the American Baptist Churches v. Goldsworthy

253 Pa. Super. 321 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1978

There can be no doubt that an acceleration clause confers a right upon the mortgagee which, by constitutional provision, is immune to impairment by legislative action. 6 It becomes equally clear that Act No. 6 limits this … Clearly, appellant could cure a default resulting from nonpayment of principal and interest.

Nogowski v. Alemo-Hammad

456 Pa. Super. 750 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1997

This latter decision by the Court was clearly the correct one given that the jury had been discharged and could not be reconstituted. … The back operation in this case clearly qualifies as a "surgical procedure.” 8 . In Levy v.

Mikhail v. Pennsylvania Organization for Women in Early Recovery

2013 Pa. Super. 36 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2013

relationship is unwarranted by precedent; would eviscerate public policy exceptions previously validated by this Court; and would thwart the purpose of the exception to the general at-will employment rule: the protection of clearly-established … Nor has Mikhail shown that her termination violated a public policy established through her professional ethical responsibilities.

McDonald v. McAndrew

40 Pa. Super. 146 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1909

In determining that question the principle thus clearly expressed in McCloskey v. McCloskey, 205 Pa. 491 , must be kept in view. … He evidently did not mean to retract or qualify his testimony as to what occurred on the very day of the execution of the deed.