Case law

Commonwealth v. Bavusa

2000 Pa. Super. 85 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2000

The trial court disagreed stating, first, the Commonwealth was not burdened with establishing the appellant’s ineligibility to obtain a license to carry a firearm. … The purpose of a proviso is to “qualify, restrain or otherwise modify the general language of the enabling provision.”

Frick & Lindsay Co. v. Maryland, Pennsylvania & West Virginia Telephone & Telegraph Co.

44 Pa. Super. 518 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 1910

From the statement of claim and the depositions it appears that the plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey and duly qualified to do business in Pennsylvania; that its principal place … But as to a foreign corporation, it clearly gave jurisdiction to the court of the county wherein it transacted its business.

Commonwealth v. Lehman

166 Pa. Super. 181 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1950

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

Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity

2011 Pa. Super. 251 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2011

In its discussion, the majority properly qualifies its statements, such as, “to the extent that the correspondence between Appellants’ counsel and Dr. … BARRICK, DOB [...],” the subpoena clearly stated, "including but not limited to: office notes, doctor's records/reports/correspondence/notes/memoranda, ...” Subpoena, 6/2/09, at 1. .

Bilonoha v. Zubritzky

233 Pa. Super. 136 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1975

(page 4) . 3 The testimony at trial clearly establishes that the hospital exercised a large degree of control over matters essential to the operation, other than the actual performance of the surgery: the hospital owned the … Whether because of the previously existing doctrine of charitable immunity of hospitals or some other reasoning, our courts historically have viewed the operating surgeon as the ‘captain of the ship’ and therefore in sole

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.

Com. v. Pittman, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2026

White, 604 U.S. 86 (2025), which ]govern[s] earlier rules of clearly established federal laws interpreting the Fifth, Sixth, Tenth[,] and Fourteenth Amendments[,] as adopted and affirmed by new substantive … That principle bars any state rule immunizing state officials from a “particular species” of federal claims, even if the immunity rule is “cloaked in jurisdictional garb.” Haywood [v.

Com. v. Bloom, T.

2025 Pa. Super. 143 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2025

The evidence clearly established that Appellant intentionally gave heroin/Fentanyl to the victim; whether he intended for her to use those drugs is irrelevant to sustaining his DDRD conviction. … Finally, in a block headed “certificate of reviewer,” the … examiner who reviewed Caylor’s analysis certified that Caylor was qualified to conduct the BAC test, and that the established procedure for handling

Fletcher v. Tribe

9 Pa. Super. 393 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1899

liable for benefits or other liabilities of the organization by removing this distinctive fealure, operated to change the status o£ the association from that of a partnership to that of a quasi corporation with even greater immunity … The latter is the usual form, and it is always better to adhere to established practice; but there being no plea in abatement here, the common interest of the parties being substantially expressed on the record, and there

First National Bank v. Maikranz

44 Pa. Super. 225 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1910

An attachment execution, as the form and language of the writ clearly indicate, is of a dual nature. … King, 96 Pa, 485, it was held that *228 a foreign corporation qualified to do business in this state may be made a garnishee in an execution attachment. In disposing of that case Mr.

Gensemer v. Gensemer

176 Pa. Super. 508 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1954

The Master recommended a divorce on the ground of indignities but found that the charge of cruel and barbarous treatment had not been established. … It must appear clearly and indubitably from the testimony that the plaintiff is the injured and innocent spouse before a decree in divorce may be granted on the grounds of indignities to the person. Othmer v.

Mitchell, K. v. Fornelli, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2018

the defense is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint.” … - 11 - J-A27010-17 case was made some ten years later and involved the defenses of high official immunity and qualified privilege or immunity.

Christiansen v. Silfies

446 Pa. Super. 464 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1995

We may reverse only where the trial court clearly and palpably abused its discretion or committed an error of law that controlled the outcome of the case. Gray v. H.C. … Trooper Crossley had been qualified as having performed over 500 truck inspections, and his duties included inspecting driver documents and safety equipment.

Commonwealth v. Thomas

284 Pa. Super. 375 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1981

No immunity was granted and some of the statements were used in subsequent prosecutions. … Where the Charter warning serves to psychologically coerce a waiver of Miranda rights the waiver clearly cannot be deemed voluntary.

Pledger, P. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

198 A.3d 1126 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2018

This is clearly not “substantially the same” knowledge that the risk of gynecomastia was 23 times what Dr. Mathisen reasonably believed it to be. … Solomon about the fact he was not an endocrinologist qualified to diagnose gynecomastia, Janssen objected to Dr. Solomon being qualified as an expert in this case because he is not an endocrinologist.

Kujawski v. Sobelewski

72 Pa. Super. 326 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1919

There is one statement we discover in the testimony of a single witness, in no way professionally qualified to give such testimony, that he suffered with consumption and cancer. … We must therefore send the case back to be tried along the lines' here indicated so that whatever verdict may be rendered upon such new trial will be more clearly respon *332 sive to the facts established by the evidence

Commonwealth v. Pringle

304 Pa. Super. 67 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 1982

Although in other circumstances the rule is well-established that to be obscene, the words must carry a sexual connotation [See Roth v. … It appears that at the time of sentencing, the Appellant was less than 21 years of age and also was a first offender, apparently thereby qualifying for the protections of Rule 1403 A(2)(b) and (c).

Miller v. Montgomery Borough

39 Pa. Super. 597 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1909

Whether this railroad siding was to be permanent, or only temporary pending the continuance of the building operation, does not clearly appear and is, perhaps, immaterial. … That has been established by the verdict of the jury and we have no assignment of error attacking the correctness of their conclusion or the sufficiency of the evidence on which it rested.