Case law

Commonwealth v. Breisch

719 A.2d 352 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1998

It is clear that Breiseh’s anticipated testimony was critical to establishing her defense to the crimes charged. … Without question, Breisch was the most qualified person to offer such relevant evidence as to her relationship with the Careys, R.J.

John Benkart & Sons Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

137 Pa. Super. 5 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1939

The order here deals with an administrative matter which this court may not disturb unless it is clearly shown to be without support in the evidence, or was so arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable as to amount to error … It appears from the record that applicants had adequate and proper equipment and facilities to render the proposed service, and were qualified financially and by experience to furnish adequate service to the public.

Com. v. Tyler, D.

234 A.3d 751 · 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

Chen v. Chen

2003 Pa. Super. 497 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2003

DID THE COURT ERR IN ACCEPTING THE OPINION TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WITHOUT PROPERLY QUALIFYING THAT WITNESS AS AN EXPERT? … Clearly, Wife intended to give Theresa the benefit of the child support payments.

Commonwealth v. Rucco

229 Pa. Super. 247 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1974

From all indications the record shows that the Appellant’s imprisonment ended on April 19, 1973 indicating that the Appellant was not thereafter qualified to call upon the provisions of the “180 day rule.” 3 The order below … This clearly distinguishes Hinton from the ease at bar.

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.

Farley v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

279 Pa. Super. 570 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 1980

Shear, 351 Pa. 521, 526 , 41 A.2d 556 (1945) where the court stated: “ ‘A right-of-way’ possessed by a motorist, is like a green light, not a command to proceed but a qualified permission to do so . . . … Mullen, 231 Pa.Super. 199, 212 [, 331 A.2d 892 ] (1974), the court said: “Clearly, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing that injuries were proximately caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Commonwealth v. Jarowecki

2007 Pa. Super. 107 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2007

After recovering these images, police consulted with a pediatrician who verified that the subjects in these images were clearly under the age of 18. Id. … If the legislature enacts a statute which clearly expresses a different application, the ‘recidivist philosophy’ possesses no authority which would override clearly contrary statutory language.”

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.

Com. v. Maldonado-Vallespil, J.

225 A.3d 159 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2019

Here, Appellant’s statements during the phone call clearly evinced both his continuing ability to exercise control over the stolen tools, and also his intent to exercise that control. See N.T. … I would conclude that constructive possession similarly qualifies as an overt act for the purposes of § 102(a)(1). Overall, I find this case to be analogous to the holdings in Farrar and Kuykendall.

Com. v. Williams, J.

2021 Pa. Super. 13 · 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.

Pollard v. Lord Corp.

445 Pa. Super. 109 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1995

The court went on to explain that if causation was established, the exclusivity provision of the WCA would bar Pollard’s common law action; if causation was not established, then Pollard’s negligence action would also, necessarily … Supreme Court explained: Under the Occupational Disease Act, only the specifically enumerated occupational disease or diseases which pass a three-part test, 77 P.S. § 1208, bring statutory benefits for the employee and tort immunity

Hovis v. Sunoco, Inc.

2013 Pa. Super. 54 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2013

Appellants premise this argument upon the idea that periodically filling an underground storage tank with gasoline demonstrates a level of supervision or control that would qualify Sunoco as an “operator” for purposes of … Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Council, Inc. v. Gentile

2001 Pa. Super. 183 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 2001

When deciding whether to grant a new trial, “we must determine whether the trial court clearly and palpably abused its discretion or committed an error of law which affected the outcome of the case.” Brinich v. … Federal regulations implementing the ECOA provide as follows: Signature of spouse or other person— (1) Rule for qualified applicant.

Tolentino v. Bailey

230 Pa. Super. 8 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1974

First, appellant contends that it was error to admit computation charts but should have required the production of actuarial testimony on the subject from a qualified expert. … He clearly explained the meaning of getting an amount for future losses today, despite the fact that the “loss” is not experienced until a time after the date of the trial.

Duquesne Light Co. v. Pennsylvania American Water Co.

2004 Pa. Super. 160 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 2004

“Our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion.” Id., citing Cochran v. … According to the Aikens panel, “The roots of this well-established rule reach back to the United States Supreme Court decision of Robins Dry Dock and Repair Company v.

Com. v. Barr, T.

240 A.3d 1263 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2020

The MMA has clearly altered the underlying factual context in which that probable cause test applies. … See Amici Brief at 5 (“The logical nexus between smelling marijuana in a car and the likelihood of finding unlawfully possessed narcotics is not immune to the effects of time and changes in law; it is affected and altered

Mercersburg, Lemasters & Markes Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission

76 Pa. Super. 58 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1921

When the hearing came on manifestly the burden was upon the utility company to establish, by the preponderance of proof, that the proposed increase in rates was reasonable. … He amply qualified bimself to testify as to the value of the property in question.

Commonwealth v. Lee

426 Pa. Super. 345 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1993

The above summary of the two decisions in Carbone clearly demonstrates that Appellant’s reliance on this Court’s decision in Carbone is misplaced. … Initially, we note that our Supreme *353 Court made no reference to the qualifying language as to the inference cited by this Court in Carbone.

Com. v. Bostian, B.

232 A.3d 898 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2020

Our Supreme Court explained the clearly erroneous exception as follows. … Super. 2019), to support the application of the clearly erroneous exception to the coordinate jurisdiction rule. See Commonwealth Brief at 13-14.