permissible inquiry in Pennsylvania

2017This opposition to consent at the prior termination proceeding “is not a permissible challenge to the validity or integrity of the adoption decree at all.” Id.

2010Phatak v. United Chair Company, 756 A.2d 690 (Pa. Super. 2000); Mendralla v. Weaver Corporation, 703 A.2d 480 (Pa. Super. 1997), where both cases discussed that feasibility is a permissible exception where safety has been challenged.

2010Phatak v. United Chair Company, 756 A.2d 690 (Pa. Super. 2000); Mendralla v. Weaver Corporation, 703 A.2d 480 (Pa. Super. 1997), where both cases discussed that feasibility is a permissible exception where safety has been challenged.

2005Therefore, regardless of whether the arbitrators committed an error of law, the arbitrator’s award cannot be vacated on this basis. ¶ 8 In reaching a contrary conclusion, the trial court relied upon this Court’s decision in Bridges, 821 A.2d at 590 , for the principle that courts must consider the merits of the arbitration award to determine whether the failure to award attorney fees was merely a permissible error of law or an impermissible irregularity.

2005Therefore, regardless of whether the arbitrators committed an error of law, the arbitrator's award cannot be vacated on this basis. ¶ 8 In reaching a contrary conclusion, the trial court relied upon this Court's decision in Bridges, 821 A.2d at 590 , for the principle that courts must consider the merits of the arbitration award to determine whether the failure to award attorney fees was merely a permissible error of law or an impermissible irregularity.

2001Our Superior Court reconciled the Muhammad and McMahon decisions in Banks v. Jerome Taylor & Associates, 700 A.2d 1329 (Pa. Super. 1997), extracting the following principles: “In cases wherein a dissatisfied litigant merely wishes to second-guess his or her decision to settle due to speculation that he or she may have been able to secure a larger amount of money, i.e. ‘get a better deal’ the Muhammad rule applies so as to bar that litigant from suing his counsel for negligence.

1997The primary means for determining the line between a pre-empted claim and a permissible claim, is “whether one could reasonably foresee that the manufacturer, in seeking to avoid liability for the error, would choose to alter the product or the label.” Worm II, 5 F.3d at 747-48 .

1997See also, Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wash.2d 67 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995); Clubine v. American Cyanamid Co., 534 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa 1995); Jenkins v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 256 Kan. 602 , 886 P.2d 869 (1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 820 , 116 S.Ct. 80 , 133 L.Ed.2d 38 (1995).

1997See also, Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wash.2d 67 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995); Clubine v. American Cyanamid Co., 534 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa 1995); Jenkins v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 256 Kan. 602 , 886 P.2d 869 (1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 820 , 116 S.Ct. 80 , 133 L.Ed.2d 38 (1995).

1997See also, Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wash.2d 67 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995); Clubine v. American Cyanamid Co., 534 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa 1995); Jenkins v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 256 Kan. 602 , 886 P.2d 869 (1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 820 , 116 S.Ct. 80 , 133 L.Ed.2d 38 (1995).

1997See also, Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wash.2d 67 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995); Clubine v. American Cyanamid Co., 534 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa 1995); Jenkins v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 256 Kan. 602 , 886 P.2d 869 (1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 820 , 116 S.Ct. 80 , 133 L.Ed.2d 38 (1995).

1997See also, Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wash.2d 67 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995); Clubine v. American Cyanamid Co., 534 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa 1995); Jenkins v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 256 Kan. 602 , 886 P.2d 869 (1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 820 , 116 S.Ct. 80 , 133 L.Ed.2d 38 (1995).

1997See also, Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wash.2d 67 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995); Clubine v. American Cyanamid Co., 534 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa 1995); Jenkins v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 256 Kan. 602 , 886 P.2d 869 (1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 820 , 116 S.Ct. 80 , 133 L.Ed.2d 38 (1995).

1991Fink v. Commonwealth, 85 Pa. Commw. 290 , 482 A.2d 281 (1984). 2 Thus it is permissible to inquire whether the jury learned of some extraneous fact, such as media reports or conversations with outsiders.

1991Fink v. Commonwealth, 85 Pa. Commw. 290 , 482 A.2d 281 (1984). 2 Thus it is permissible to inquire whether the jury learned of some extraneous fact, such as media reports or conversations with outsiders.

1983In Re Wesley J.K., 299 Pa.Super. 504 , 445 A.2d 1243 (1982); G.J.F. v. K.B.F., supra. In the present case the trial court did not consider the relative income of the parties in making its custody decision.

1983In Re Wesley J.K., 299 Pa.Super. 504 , 445 A.2d 1243 (1982); G.J.F. v. K.B.F., supra. In the present case the trial court did not consider the relative income of the parties in making its custody decision.

1977The second case relied upon by defendant, Remington v. Remington, 393 F. Supp. 898 (E.D.

1950We are satisfied that some of the testimony which the Company seeks to introduce, as set forth in paragraph 7 of its petition for additional hearing, is material, if true.” The averment in clause (e) of paragraph 7 of the employer’s petition that only four employes favored the union at the time of filing the petition is not a permissible defense in the instant case as a shift in union’s membership, brought about about by unfair labor practices of the employer, cannot operate to change the bargaining representative previously selected by the untrammeled will of the majority: National Labor Rela

1950An employer cannot discredit a duly designated bargaining agency by his own unlawful act and then be allowed to take advantage of a loss in membership: Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 321 U. S. 678 , (1944) ; Oughton et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, 118 F. (2d) 486, 490 (1940) ; Appeal of Harry D.

1947The majority opinion cites Jeffers v. Babis, 304 Pa. 281 , 155 A. 878 , but there the court pointed out that the defendant was guilty of fraud, thus bringing the case within the recognized exception; moreover the plaintiff in that case proved failure of consideration on the part of the defendant which, as distinguished from want of consideration, is a permissible defense in the case of every contract.

1947The majority opinion cites Jeffers v. Babis, 304 Pa. 281 , 155 A. 878 , but there the court pointed out that the defendant was guilty of fraud, thus bringing the case within the recognized exception; moreover the plaintiff in that case proved failure of consideration on the part of the defendant which, as distinguished from want of consideration, is a permissible defense in the case of every contract.