Case law

Pennsylvania Telephone Co. v. Hoover

24 Pa. Super. 96 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1904

The adjective evidently qualifies roads, streets and highways. … , except in the neighborhood of deep cuttings or high embankments, or places selected for sidings, turnouts, depots, engine, or water stations, to exceed sixty feet in width, and thereon to laydown, erect, construct and establish

Commonwealth v. Blankenstein

81 Pa. Super. 340 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1923

There is but one subject in the statute and that is clearly expressed in its title. The term sedition is well understood. The first section of the statute specifically defines the acts constituting that offense. … It is asserted by tbe appellant that tbe evidence was not sufficient to establish tbe charge, but we have tbe oral evidence only before us.

Dillon v. HOMEOWNER'S SELECT, AFFINITY INS. SERVICES, INC.

2008 Pa. Super. 229 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2008

Recognizing this Commonwealth’s strong public policy against gender discrimination as clearly expressed in both the Equal Rights Amendment and in the PHRA, we permitted a limited exception to Pennsylvania’s at-will employment … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Carlini, S. v. Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc.

2019 Pa. Super. 282 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2019

“An abuse of discretion generally will not be found unless there is a showing of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” … The [c]ourt is confident that Michael Hall was capable and qualified to answer a basic subtraction question.

Snyder v. Union Paving Co.

170 Pa. Super. 112 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1951

Accordingly a plaintiff’s contributory negligence may be established by his answers on cross-examination which contradict an assertion in his direct testimony of lack of memory as to the facts. Cf. Black et al. v. … Ray et al., 366 Pa. 134, 143 , 76 A. 2d 628 ) and they clearly convict him of contributory negligence barring recovery.

Commonwealth v. Serge

2003 Pa. Super. 470 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2003

Clearly, the jury accepted his findings, and there exists no reason for us to disturb the jury’s decision to do so. … If error is found to have been committed, a new trial is warranted only where such error has been clearly prejudicial to the appellant. Commonwealth v.

Hygienic Fleeced Underwear Co. v. Way

35 Pa. Super. 229 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1908

Nor is there anything in the picture to qualify the words or to indicate to the public that only the one piece garment was meant; on the contrary, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff was to the effect that it was a picture … Clearly not.

E. Bradford Clarke Co. v. Railroad Co.

27 Pa. Super. 251 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1905

Presumably it was because the plaintiff’s evidence failed to establish negligence on the part of the defendant, or disclosed the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. … Presumably he was the best qualified to testify upon that subject, and by examining him with reference thereto the plaintiff was not put to the peril of a cross-examination involving all the matters material to the defense

Commonwealth v. Sanchez

407 Pa. Super. 234 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 1991

At page 7 of his brief, Sanchez states: Clearly, establishing that the appellant is “illegal”, Hispanic, and from the Dominican Republic can have nothing but a deleterious effect upon the members of the jury. … Such evidence clearly created prejudice and animosity among the jury. Such tactics are not permissible, wherefore a new trial is mandated.

Williams Unemployment Compensation Case

193 Pa. Super. 320 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1960

.” *324 The claimant is clearly an unemployed person for whom this legislation was designed to protect. … The very use of the words “bona fide” and “company”, indicate this clearly.

Woods v. PLEASANT HILLS MOTOR CO.

219 Pa. Super. 381 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1971

The appellants question the sufficiency of the proof offered by the plaintiff to establish these facts, i.e., defect and causation. … The differences in this ease are too great for a jury, or for anyone in fact, to clearly understand.

Estate of Smith

2005 Pa. Super. 161 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2005

The codicil clearly states that compensation is fixed; the wording need not negate all other possibilities. … Pitcairn Trust would accept the trusteeship at the established compensation subject to the trust hiring a professional grant administrator.

Conley v. Allegheny County

131 Pa. Super. 236 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1938

Superior Ct. 415 , 175 A. 872 , where there was clearly a recurrence of disability, and Reddicks v. Welsbach G. & E. Co. et al., 124 Pa. Superior Ct. 285 , 188 A. 417 , would not be applicable. … The statement that claimant was walking with crutches when she signed the final receipt is clearly erroneous; there is testimony that she was using a cane, but none that she used crutches.

Commonwealth v. Fieldler

2007 Pa. Super. 251 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2007

He was traveling so excessively [as] to qualify as a willful and wanton disregard of safety for others. That’s this case. … I think your client’s admission and the circumstances that are reflected in these pictures clearly demonstrate this is a case of reckless disregard. (N.T. Hearing, 3/23/06, at 54.)

Commonwealth v. Tanner

205 A.3d 388 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2019

Succinctly stated, Appellant asserts that “counsel’s lack of investigation, preparation and coherent strategy clearly led to [his] abrupt guilty plea, mid- trial.” Id. at 29. … The burden is on the defense to establish the claim; it is error to shift the burden to the prosecution to establish or refute the claim.

Chambers v. Reinhold

33 Pa. Super. 266 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1907

Reinhold duly qualified as administrator c. t. a. of his estate. Thomas P. Moore died testate on March 18, 1898, and his widow, Emma D. Moore, qualified as executrix of his last will and testament. … common pleas, is established by numerous cases.

Carroll v. Miner

1 Pa. Super. 439 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1896

Chestnut Hill Iron Co., 45 Pa. 475 , Justice Thompson said: “For it is the requirement of the law, that if any part of an entire establishment, such as a mill or foundry, or a furnace establishment be seized in execution, … This would result, not from an unbending and unvarying rule of law, but from a rule of construction which must yield to the actual intent where it *456 clearly appears.

Commonwealth v. Sloan

414 Pa. Super. 400 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1992

In Crum , no other evidence was presented to establish intoxication besides the test results. … Clearly, the certificate of calibration, when offered into evidence with a certificate of accuracy, shall be presumptive evidence only of the completion of the proper testing for accuracy of the breath test equipment. *416

Com. v. Robinson, M.

2026 Pa. Super. 49 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2026

While “over the past couple years” was not further defined, clearly the officer’s information was fairly recent. … However, we find the information sufficient to qualify the area as high crime, just as the trial court did.

Commonwealth v. Landy

240 Pa. Super. 458 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1976

We do not regard this omission as evidencing a legislative intent to immunize from forfeiture the proceeds of the sale of a controlled substance. … Officer Beckman’s testimony concerning the findings of the chemist which were contained in the laboratory report was clearly hearsay. The Commonwealth made no further attempt to properly introduce this evidence.