manifest error in Pennsylvania

2000Board of Directors of School District of City of Scranton v. Roberts, 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 464 , 320 A.2d 141 (1974), aff'd, 462 Pa. 464 , 341 A.2d 475 (1975). 5 .

2000Board of Directors of School District of City of Scranton v. Roberts, 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 464 , 320 A.2d 141 (1974), aff'd, 462 Pa. 464 , 341 A.2d 475 (1975). 5 .

2000Board of Directors of School District of City of Scranton v. Roberts, 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 464 , 320 A.2d 141 (1974), aff'd, 462 Pa. 464 , 341 A.2d 475 (1975). 5 .

2000Board of Directors of School District of City of Scranton v. Roberts, 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 464 , 320 A.2d 141 (1974), aff'd, 462 Pa. 464 , 341 A.2d 475 (1975). 5 .

1993Leibowitz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 224 Pa.Super. 418 , 307 A.2d 449 (1973).

1993Leibowitz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 224 Pa.Super. 418 , 307 A.2d 449 (1973).

2019This right is an adjunct of due process and is not dependent upon express statutory authority.” Carlacci, supra at 188 .5 In Wexler, the seminal case on expungement hearings in the Commonwealth, our Supreme Court defined the responsibilities of a court as it decides whether to expunge an arrest record: “In determining whether justice requires expungement, the court, in each particular case, must balance the individual’s right to be free from the harm attendant to maintenance of ____________________________________________ 4In claiming that the trial court “committed a manifest error of law,” A

2019Whether the lower court committed a manifest error of law or otherwise abused its discretion in failing to apply the holdings -2- of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as set forth in Carlacci v. Mazaleski, . . . 798 A.2d 186 ([Pa.Super.] 2002) to Appellant’s motion for expungement of docket record. 2.

2019Whether the lower court committed a manifest error of law or otherwise abused its discretion in applying the holdings of the Pennsylvania Superior Court as set forth in Commonwealth v. Charnik, . . . 921 A.2d 1214 [(Pa.Super.] 2007) to Appellant’s motion for expungement of docket record. 3.

2019Whether the lower court committed a manifest error of law or otherwise abused its discretion in applying the holdings of the Pennsylvania Superior Court as set forth in Commonwealth v. Charnik, . . . 921 A.2d 1214 [(Pa.Super.] 2007) to Appellant’s motion for expungement of docket record. 3.

2019Whether the lower court committed a manifest error of law or otherwise abused its discretion in refusing to apply the “Wexler” balancing test, as set forth in Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981)[,] and made applicable to the expungement of protection from abuse orders in Carlacci, to Appellant’s motion for expungement of docket record.

2019Whether the lower court committed a manifest error of law or otherwise abused its discretion in refusing to apply the “Wexler” balancing test, as set forth in Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981)[,] and made applicable to the expungement of protection from abuse orders in Carlacci, to Appellant’s motion for expungement of docket record.

2016Appellant *650 asserts "this refusal to consider the merits of [Appellant's] [Act 6] defense was a manifest error." Id.

2011“It is well-settled in Pennsylvania that a trial court has the inherent, common-law authority to correct 'clear clerical errors' in its orders.” Commonwealth v. Borrin, 12 A.3d 466, 471 (Pa.Super.2011), appeal granted, 22 A.3d 1020 (Pa.2011). "[E]ven where the court would normally be divested of jurisdiction, a court may have the power to correct patent and obvious mistakes.” Commonwealth v. Klein, 566 Pa. 396 , 781 A.2d 1133, 1135 (2001).

1988Buttonwood Farms, Inc. v. Carson, 329 Pa.Super. 312 , 478 A.2d 484 (1984).

1988Buttonwood Farms, Inc. v. Carson, 329 Pa.Super. 312 , 478 A.2d 484 (1984).

1987Id.

1979Commonwealth v. Wagenhoffer, 245 Pa.Super. 617 , 372 A.2d 431 (1977).

1979Commonwealth v. Wagenhoffer, 245 Pa.Super. 617 , 372 A.2d 431 (1977).

1961The approach that the lower court took in evaluating the credibility to be given the witnesses urging the common law marriage was approved by Justice (now Chief Justice) Bell in Manfredi Estate, 399 Pa. 285, 292 , 159 A. 2d 697 (1960), where he quoted from Baker v. Mitchell, 143 Pa. Superior Ct. 50 , 17 A. 2d 738 (1941) as follows: “‘The law of Pennsylvania recognizes common-law marriages.

1961The approach that the lower court took in evaluating the credibility to be given the witnesses urging the common law marriage was approved by Justice (now Chief Justice) Bell in Manfredi Estate, 399 Pa. 285, 292 , 159 A. 2d 697 (1960), where he quoted from Baker v. Mitchell, 143 Pa. Superior Ct. 50 , 17 A. 2d 738 (1941) as follows: “‘The law of Pennsylvania recognizes common-law marriages.

1961The approach that the lower court took in evaluating the credibility to be given the witnesses urging the common law marriage was approved by Justice (now Chief Justice) Bell in Manfredi Estate, 399 Pa. 285, 292 , 159 A. 2d 697 (1960), where he quoted from Baker v. Mitchell, 143 Pa. Superior Ct. 50 , 17 A. 2d 738 (1941) as follows: “‘The law of Pennsylvania recognizes common-law marriages.

1961The approach that the lower court took in evaluating the credibility to be given the witnesses urging the common law marriage was approved by Justice (now Chief Justice) Bell in Manfredi Estate, 399 Pa. 285, 292 , 159 A. 2d 697 (1960), where he quoted from Baker v. Mitchell, 143 Pa. Superior Ct. 50 , 17 A. 2d 738 (1941) as follows: “‘The law of Pennsylvania recognizes common-law marriages.

1958However, there must be an end somewhere and I know of no better citation with which to terminate this Opinion than the case of Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free Library of Baltimore City, 149 F. 2nd 212, cert. denied, 326 U.S. 721 , where the facts are sufficiently similar to the ones in the case at bar as to make the reasoning therein unanswerable by the Majority in this case.

1958However, there must be an end somewhere and I know of no better citation with which to terminate this Opinion than the case of Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free Library of Baltimore City, 149 F. 2nd 212, cert. denied, 326 U. S. 721 , where the facts are sufficiently similar to the ones in the case at bar as to make the reasoning therein unanswerable by the Majority in this case.

1951He contends that there is an exception to the rule where a manifest error has been made and cites for our consideration Ernst’s Estate, 317 Pa. 367 , which decision was based upon Money-penny’s Estate, 181 Pa. 309 .

1951He contends that there is an exception to the rule where a manifest error has been made and cites for our consideration Ernst’s Estate, 317 Pa. 367 , which decision was based upon Money-penny’s Estate, 181 Pa. 309 .

1943That he kept silent was his right, as, at the time, he must have understood it, and the manifest error was committed in submitting his silence to the jury as circumstantial evidence against him.” In Com. v. Coyne, 115 Pa. Superior Ct. 23 , the defendant was charged with keeping a gambling house.

1937Stanley’s Appeal, 8 Pa. 431 , is not similar.

1936The appellate court will not reverse in such circumstances unless there is a manifest error, which is not present in this case: Exton v. Saddler, 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 476 , 173 A. 694 . (2) As to the second question argued, the court below said: “Defendants in their brief of argument filed with the Court in support of their exceptions for the first time in the trial of the case, raise the question of the identity of the property in suit.

1936The appellate court will not reverse in such circumstances unless there is a manifest error, which is not present in this case: Exton v. Saddler, 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 476 , 173 A. 694 . (2) As to the second question argued, the court below said: “Defendants in their brief of argument filed with the Court in support of their exceptions for the first time in the trial of the case, raise the question of the identity of the property in suit.