area inquiry in Pennsylvania

2009During his cross-examination, the defendant either objected to the questions or invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege on numerous occasions; the trial court sustained the invocation of the privilege about half the time. ¶ 10 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, while- disagreeing with the Superior Court’s assertion that Appellant had completely waived the privilege, held that when a defendant takes the stand and “opens an area of inquiry, he cannot claim the privilege when, on cross-examination, he is interrogated in that particular area, and that wide latitude should be allowed in cross-examinatio

1986Id. at 264 , 277 A.2d at 330-1 .

2021Stevens, 739 A.2d at 524 .

2019Id.

2007Svetik, 547 A.2d at 798 ; see Freedman v. Tax Review Board of the City of Philadelphia, 434 Pa. 282 , 258 A.2d 323 (1969); Tax Review Board v. Belmont Laboratories Co., 392 Pa. 473 , 141 A.2d 234 (1958); Houston v. City of Pittsburgh, 8 Pa.Cmwlth. 468 , 303 A.2d 860 (1973); see also, 28 P.L.E.

2007Svetik, 547 A.2d at 798 ; see Freedman v. Tax Review Board of the City of Philadelphia, 434 Pa. 282 , 258 A.2d 323 (1969); Tax Review Board v. Belmont Laboratories Co., 392 Pa. 473 , 141 A.2d 234 (1958); Houston v. City of Pittsburgh, 8 Pa.Cmwlth. 468 , 303 A.2d 860 (1973); see also, 28 P.L.E.

2007Svetik, 547 A.2d at 798 ; see Freedman v. Tax Review Board of the City of Philadelphia, 434 Pa. 282 , 258 A.2d 323 (1969); Tax Review Board v. Belmont Laboratories Co., 392 Pa. 473 , 141 A.2d 234 (1958); Houston v. City of Pittsburgh, 8 Pa.Cmwlth. 468 , 303 A.2d 860 (1973); see also, 28 P.L.E.

2007Svetik, 547 A.2d at 798 ; see Freedman v. Tax Review Board of the City of Philadelphia, 434 Pa. 282 , 258 A.2d 323 (1969); Tax Review Board v. Belmont Laboratories Co., 392 Pa. 473 , 141 A.2d 234 (1958); Houston v. City of Pittsburgh, 8 Pa.Cmwlth. 468 , 303 A.2d 860 (1973); see also, 28 P.L.E.

2006Id. at 743-44 .

2006Id. at 743-44 .

2000Such a plan is not a recording of the act of designation as a State highway, which necessarily precedes the development of any such plan. [3] See Joint State Government Commission, General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Sovereign Immunity 13 (1978), concerning the exception to immunity for Commonwealth real estate, highways and sidewalks: "As to real property generally, this area of waiver is intended to impose liability as it would exist if the owner or lessee were a private person." [1] As the Governmental Immunity Act was a statute finally enacted after September 1, 1937 and

1996The court concluded that although audiologists play a vital role in the area of hearing science, “[i]t is also necessary for an otolaryngologist to examine the claimant and determine whether his or her clinical findings are consistent with the audiologist’s test results.” Id. at 668 .

1996The court concluded that although audiologists play a vital role in the area of hearing science, "[i]t is also necessary for an otolaryngologist to examine the claimant and determine whether his or her clinical findings are consistent with the audiologist's test results." Id. at 668 .

1990Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963).

1990Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963).

1990In this regard, we view with some incredulity the insurer’s attack on what is, perhaps, the leading decision in this area of inquiry, Keene Corporation v. Insurance Company of North America, 667 F.2d 1034 (D.C.Cir.1981).

1987Pa.R.C.P. 127(c)(5); Union National Bank and Trust Company of Sounderton v. Walker, 315 Pa.Super. 37 , 461 A.2d 623 (1983).

1987Pa.R.C.P. 127(c)(5); Union National Bank and Trust Company of Sounderton v. Walker, 315 Pa.Super. 37 , 461 A.2d 623 (1983).

1986For example, under the Liquor Code, April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, No. 21 §493(1), a licensee may not furnish liquor ‘to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any insane person, or to any minor, or to habitual drunkards.’ See, Smith v. *402 Clark, 411 Pa. 142 (1963), which held that violation of this provision constitutes negligence per se, with liability attaching if proximate cause is proven; also see §4-497 of the Liquor Code for applicable limitations.

1986Finally, in Commonwealth v. Graver, 461 Pa. 131 , 334 A.2d 667 (1975), where the Lancaster County District Attorney initiated an equity action to enjoin the operation of a tavern as a nuisance under Section 6-611 of the Liquor Code, the Supreme Court said: “Moreover, testimony concerning conduct by bar patrons in the area of the bar who are attracted to the area by the manner of operation of the bar is competent evidence to support an injunction as a nuisance in law and in fact ...

1986Finally, in Commonwealth v. Graver, 461 Pa. 131 , 334 A.2d 667 (1975), where the Lancaster County District Attorney initiated an equity action to enjoin the operation of a tavern as a nuisance under Section 6-611 of the Liquor Code, the Supreme Court said: “Moreover, testimony concerning conduct by bar patrons in the area of the bar who are attracted to the area by the manner of operation of the bar is competent evidence to support an injunction as a nuisance in law and in fact ...

1984The Unemployment Compensation Law was not enacted to compensate individuals who fail in their business ventures and become unemployed businessmen. ...” The court went on to state the area of inquiry in these cases. “[T]he proper test is whether the employee ‘exercise a substantial degree of control over the corporation’; if so, he is a businessman and not an employee.” Id. at 260 , 289 A.2d 728 .

1980See, Mosley, supra; U.S. v. Jones, 608 F.2d 1004 (4 Cir., 1979). [3] However, the court did not narrow the area of inquiry but effectively precluded counsel from propounding any questions dealing with victimization of crime.

1980See, Mosley, supra; U.S. v. Jones, 608 F.2d 1004 (4 Cir., 1979). 3 However, the court did not narrow the area of inquiry but effectively precluded counsel from propounding any questions dealing with victimization of crime.

1980Further, Judge Wieand, writing for the panel in the original disposition of this case at 264 Pa.Super. 574 , 400 A.2d 1320 (1979), and the majority in this en banc disposition, noted that the trial judge not only failed to narrow the area of inquiry but "effectively precluded" counsel from propounding any questions dealing with victimization of crime.

1980Further, Judge Wieand, writing for the panel in the original disposition of this case at 264 Pa.Super. 574 , 400 A.2d 1320 (1979), and the majority in this en banc disposition, noted that the trial judge not only failed to narrow the area of inquiry but "effectively precluded" counsel from propounding any questions dealing with victimization of crime.

1979In Nebel v. Mauk, 434 Pa. 315 , 253 A.2d 249 (1969), conflicting testimony indicated that the second striking of a victim might have occurred within two seconds of the first striking, in which event it could hardly be said that two separate accidents had taken place.

1979In Nebel v. Mauk, 434 Pa. 315 , 253 A.2d 249 (1969), conflicting testimony indicated that the second striking of a victim might have occurred within two seconds of the first striking, in which event it could hardly be said that two separate accidents had taken place.

1977As stated by this Court in O'Brien v. O'Brien, 362 Pa. 66, 70 , 66 A.2d 309, 311 (1949): It is axiomatic that a bill for discovery in aid of an action or a defense at law cannot be maintained if the action or the defense itself cannot be maintained; this is because a bill for discovery in aid of a claim at law is wholly an ancillary proceeding, and if the asserted claim is itself invalid a bill for discovery in support of it must necessarily fall on demurrer: Holland v. Hallahan, 211 Pa. 223, 226 , 60 A. 735, 736 ; Elk Brewing Co. v. Neubert, 213 Pa. 171, 176 , 62 A. 782, 783, 784 . [7] *340 I

1977As stated by this Court in O’Brien v. O’Brien, 362 Pa. 66, 70 , 66 A.2d 309, 311 (1949): It is axiomatic that a bill for discovery in aid of an action or a defense at law cannot be maintained if the action or the defense itself cannot be maintained; this is because a bill for discovery in aid of a claim at law is wholly an ancillary proceeding, and if the asserted claim is itself invalid a bill for discovery in support of it must necessarily fall on demurrer: Holland, v. Hallaban, 211 Pa. 223, 226 , 60 A. 735, 736 ; Elk Brewing Co. v. Neubert, 213 Pa. 171, 176 , 62 A. 782, 783, 784 . 7 It is c

1977As stated by this Court in O'Brien v. O'Brien, 362 Pa. 66, 70 , 66 A.2d 309, 311 (1949): It is axiomatic that a bill for discovery in aid of an action or a defense at law cannot be maintained if the action or the defense itself cannot be maintained; this is because a bill for discovery in aid of a claim at law is wholly an ancillary proceeding, and if the asserted claim is itself invalid a bill for discovery in support of it must necessarily fall on demurrer: Holland v. Hallahan, 211 Pa. 223, 226 , 60 A. 735, 736 ; Elk Brewing Co. v. Neubert, 213 Pa. 171, 176 , 62 A. 782, 783, 784 . [7] *340 I

1977As stated by this Court in O’Brien v. O’Brien, 362 Pa. 66, 70 , 66 A.2d 309, 311 (1949): It is axiomatic that a bill for discovery in aid of an action or a defense at law cannot be maintained if the action or the defense itself cannot be maintained; this is because a bill for discovery in aid of a claim at law is wholly an ancillary proceeding, and if the asserted claim is itself invalid a bill for discovery in support of it must necessarily fall on demurrer: Holland, v. Hallaban, 211 Pa. 223, 226 , 60 A. 735, 736 ; Elk Brewing Co. v. Neubert, 213 Pa. 171, 176 , 62 A. 782, 783, 784 . 7 It is c

1977Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 , 90 S.Ct. 1999 , 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963).

1977Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 , 90 S.Ct. 1999 , 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963).