Case law

Com. v. Tyler, D.

2020 Pa. Super. 145 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2020

Tyler claims that the PCRA court erred by denying his request for DNA testing where DNA evidence “would clearly undermine the theory that [he] was guilty of First[-]Degree Murder.” Brief of Appellant, at 9. … -4- J-S25009-20 To qualify for relief under section 9543.1, an applicant must, inter alia, “present a prima facie case demonstrating that the . . . identity of or

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.

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.

Leight v. Lefkowitz

419 Pa. Super. 502 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1992

In a well-reasoned concurring and dissenting opinion, then-Justice (now Chief Justice) Nix, argued that a sheriffs return, when full and complete on its face, must be conclusive and immune from attack, citing Hollinger v. … Because service had not been completed, the Lefkowitzes were clearly entitled to have the judgment opened. The trial court’s denial of that petition to open was error, as a matter of law.

State Col. Boro. Auth. v. Pa. P.U.C.

152 Pa. Super. 363 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1942

We again ask: Why should it have resorted to subtle niceties to give to municipal authorities immunity from commission regulation? … Appellant did not comply with this requirement and section 312 provides that where a complaint is filed before the challenged rates become effective the burden of establishing their reasonableness is on the utility.

Com. v. Cramer, R., III

195 A.3d 594 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2018

It is well established that “resistance to sexual assault is not required to sustain a conviction.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 863 A.2d 1172, 1176 (Pa. Super. 2004). … the inquiry to whether the Victim’s relationship with her ex-boyfriend was sexual would not add any relevant information, and would improperly shift the focus of the trial to the Victim’s virtue and chastity, which is clearly

Commonwealth v. Jackson

435 Pa. Super. 410 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1994

An expert *416 witness, qualified in the field of narcotics investigation, testified that the evidence was more consistent with possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver than with possession of a controlled … The instant case is clearly more analogous to the cases discussed above, where the quantum of proof required to sustain a conviction for the charge of intent to deliver a controlled substance was lacking.

Roberts v. Estate of Pursley

718 A.2d 837 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1998

In order to qualify as a bona fide purchaser, the subsequent buyer must be without notice of a prior equitable interest. Id. … It clearly shows that Appellants’ predecessors had failed to record for approximately 113 years, finally recording in 1967.

Ambler v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

39 Pa. Super. 198 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1909

It is true that a number of witnesses spoke of Miss Ambler’s arriving “on the next train” or “by a later train,” but reading the entire evidence of each of such witnesses clearly establishes that not one of them saw Miss … Another witness, Edward Palmer, testified, at first, that Miss Ambler had arrived on an east-bound train, but in replying to the very next question he qualified this by saying, “Understand, I did not see her alight from the

Com. v. Little, K.

246 A.3d 312 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2021

The trial court established that Alston indeed would qualify for the death penalty, but then ended the sidebar without explicitly ruling on defense counsel’s proposed re-direct. Id. at pp. 65-66. … We held that counsel apparently opted to agree with the clearly detrimental ruling, resulting in Little’s loss of an arguably meritorious issue that could have afforded him a new trial.

Commonwealth v. Persia

449 Pa. Super. 332 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1996

The expert, during the course of qualifying him to testify, recalled that for several months efforts were made to make *336 the child/victim comfortable enough to reveal in court what occurred between himself and the appellant … In the case sub judice, expert testimony established compelling reasons to retain Mr. Persia’s arrest record.

Com. v. DS

903 A.2d 582 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2006

Because the offenses were "ungraded," the offenses qualify under the Juvenile Act's definition of "delinquent act." … s offenses do not qualify as "delinquent acts." Id. Because the offenses do not qualify as "delinquent acts," D.S.'s offenses must be prosecuted under the criminal law and procedures.

Miskel v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.

85 Pa. Super. 357 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1925

And there was nothing in the release expressly granting such right nor conferring immunity for damages caused thereby. Neither can it be said to have been within the contemplation of the parties. … The ruling of the court in each instance was so clearly right and the complaints are so void of merit that we refrain from further comment. 4.

In re the Adoption of Mullen

321 Pa. Super. 496 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1983

In conjunction with the dependency adjudication, a schedule of fifteen visits between appellant and her child were established. … The lower court indicated that it was "clearly convinced” that the requirements for termination of appellant's parental rights had been met. Lower court opinion at 7.

G. H. McShane Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

262 Pa. Super. 80 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1978

a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly overshadowed. 404 U.S. at 106 , 92 S.Ct. at 355 . 6 Only such a new principle … of law may qualify for nonretrospective application.

Furdock v. Washington Mutual F. & S. Ins.

111 Pa. Super. 61 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1933

The court properly held that the witness, a machinist and welder, called to establish that contention, did not qualify as an expert to give an opinion on those technical questions. … The evidence clearly showed that there was a quantity of dynamite at the plaintiff’s place of business, kept for sale to miners. This case is readily distinguishable in its facts from the one at bar.

Commonwealth v. Knox

2012 Pa. Super. 147 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2012

However, Miller does not establish a categorical ban. … Whitaker has clearly been overruled by Miller . .

Lapinsohn v. Lewis Charles, Inc.

212 Pa. Super. 185 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1968

The Bank filed preliminary objections on December 5, 1966, alleging that it was immune from suit in Pennsylvania under 12 U.S.C. §91 , a federal venue statute which limits actions against national banks. … Thus, the present methods of record keeping utilized by the Bank obviates the primary purpose of the venue statute and, as the depositions clearly indicate, places no burden upon either the branch office or the charter office