fairness rule in Pennsylvania

2022He maintains that he had a right to be present at the hearing and that under Commonwealth v. Hunsberger, 58 A.3d 32 (Pa. 2012), this right was impugned.

2019Hammons, supra, 190 A.3d at 1262 . -8- J-A29008-18 These considerations are codified in Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322, which provides, in pertinent part: (a) General rule.--A tribunal of this Commonwealth may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person … as to a cause of action or other matter arising from such person: **** (3) Causing harm or tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth. **** (b) Exercise of full constitutional power over nonresidents.--In addition to the provisions of subsection (a) the jurisdiction of the tribunals of this Commonwealth sh

2018The fairness factors in the third requirement that a court will consider are "the burden on the defendant, the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies." Id. at 1786 .

2003The fact that the Football Club was commercially domiciled in Philadelphia and played some of its games there only meant that the City was entitled to tax its fair share of the receipts, not all of the receipts as the Commonwealth Court found. [43] Accord Appraisal Review Bd. v. *135 Tex-Air Helicopters, Inc., 970 S.W.2d 530 (Tex.1998) (domiciliary state may not tax values that are taxable elsewhere); see General Motors Corp. v. City & County of Denver, 990 P.2d 59, 71 (Colo.1999) ("In the context of income taxes or taxes on gross receipts, apportionment must take into account the location whe

2003The fact that the Football Club was commercially domiciled in Philadelphia and played some of its games there only meant that the City was entitled to tax its fair share of the receipts, not all of the receipts as the Commonwealth Court found. 43 Accord Appraisal Review Bd. v. Tex-Air Helicopters, Inc., 970 S.W.2d 530 (Tex.1998) (domiciliary state may not tax values that are taxable elsewhere); see General Motors Corp. v. City & County of Denver, 990 P.2d 59, 71 (Colo.1999) (“In the context of income taxes or taxes on gross receipts, apportionment must take into account the location where reve

2003The fairness of the rule has been praised[.] [[Image here]] Barshady v. Schlosser, 226 Pa.Super. 260 , 313 A.2d 296 (1973) presented a factual pattern similar to the instant case.

2003The fairness of the rule has been praised[.] [[Image here]] Barshady v. Schlosser, 226 Pa.Super. 260 , 313 A.2d 296 (1973) presented a factual pattern similar to the instant case.

1991He referred specifically to the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Caesar v. Mountanos, 542 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1976) cert. denied, 430 U.S. 954 , remarking that: “The compelling state interest was found in seeing that truth is ascertained in legal proceedings in the state’s courts of law, and the court also alluded to a fairness requirement by stating, ‘Every person who brings a lawsuit under our system of jurisprudence must bear disclosure of those facts upon which his claim is based.’ 542 F.2d at 1068 .” 81 F.R.D. at 746 .

1991He referred specifically to the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Caesar v. Mountanos, 542 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1976) cert. denied, 430 U.S. 954 , remarking that: “The compelling state interest was found in seeing that truth is ascertained in legal proceedings in the state’s courts of law, and the court also alluded to a fairness requirement by stating, ‘Every person who brings a lawsuit under our system of jurisprudence must bear disclosure of those facts upon which his claim is based.’ 542 F.2d at 1068 .” 81 F.R.D. at 746 .

1991He referred specifically to the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Caesar v. Mountanos, 542 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1976) cert. denied, 430 U.S. 954 , remarking that: “The compelling state interest was found in seeing that truth is ascertained in legal proceedings in the state’s courts of law, and the court also alluded to a fairness requirement by stating, ‘Every person who brings a lawsuit under our system of jurisprudence must bear disclosure of those facts upon which his claim is based.’ 542 F.2d at 1068 .” 81 F.R.D. at 746 .

1991He referred specifically to the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Caesar v. Mountanos, 542 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1976) cert. denied, 430 U.S. 954 , remarking that: “The compelling state interest was found in seeing that truth is ascertained in legal proceedings in the state’s courts of law, and the court also alluded to a fairness requirement by stating, ‘Every person who brings a lawsuit under our system of jurisprudence must bear disclosure of those facts upon which his claim is based.’ 542 F.2d at 1068 .” 81 F.R.D. at 746 .

1981Our Court, citing the decision in Ayers v. Morgan, 397 Pa. at 290 , 154 A.2d at 792 , has noted that for purposes of statute of limitations questions, the “injury” is considered done “. . . when the act heralding a possible tort inflicts a damage which is physically objective and ascertainable.” See Ragan v. Steen, 229 Pa.Super. 515, 520 , 331 A.2d 724, 727 (1974).

1981Our Court, citing the decision in Ayers v. Morgan, 397 Pa. at 290 , 154 A.2d at 792 , has noted that for purposes of statute of limitations questions, the “injury” is considered done “. . . when the act heralding a possible tort inflicts a damage which is physically objective and ascertainable.” See Ragan v. Steen, 229 Pa.Super. 515, 520 , 331 A.2d 724, 727 (1974).

1975However, the hostility of an administrative judge against a particular party can vitiate the fairness of a hearing even in the absence of reversible error: Gardner v. Repasky, 434 Pa. 126 , 252 A. 2d 704 (1969).

1975However, the hostility of an administrative judge against a particular party can vitiate the fairness of a hearing even in the absence of reversible error: Gardner v. Repasky, 434 Pa. 126 , 252 A. 2d 704 (1969).

1950Ice Cream, Co., 276 Pa. 340, 344 , 120 A. 272 , derived from the fact that “. . . business trucks are primarily designed and are generally used for the business of the owner, and, in case of accident, it is not unreasonable to require the owner, whose name appears thereon, to prove the exceptional case where the use was, in fact, for other purposes not connected with defendant’s business or for his benefit.” The fairness of the rule was further well expressed in the Sieber case where it was said that from the “outward evidence of ownership or use to which [business vehicles] are being put” and

1950Ice Cream, Co., 276 Pa. 340, 344 , 120 A. 272 , derived from the fact that “. . . business trucks are primarily designed and are generally used for the business of the owner, and, in case of accident, it is not unreasonable to require the owner, whose name appears thereon, to prove the exceptional case where the use was, in fact, for other purposes not connected with defendant’s business or for his benefit.” The fairness of the rule was further well expressed in the Sieber case where it was said that from the “outward evidence of ownership or use to which [business vehicles] are being put” and

1939Co., 227 U. S. 88 , 91); a review of the decisions cited in support of the statement shows that in such circumstances the order would be held erroneous or invalid and set aside, if a proper proceeding to attack the fairness of the hearing and the legal support for the order was resorted, to.