admitted error in Pennsylvania

2024Appellant insists that the testimony from law enforcement constituted evidence presented in the form of oblique narratives relating to the course of police investigation, which would allow the jury to “accept third- party declarations as substantive evidence of guilt without giving the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.” (Appellant’s Brief at 47) (citing Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 671 , 863 A.2d 1143 (2004)).

2024Appellant insists that the testimony from law enforcement constituted evidence presented in the form of oblique narratives relating to the course of police investigation, which would allow the jury to “accept third- party declarations as substantive evidence of guilt without giving the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.” (Appellant’s Brief at 47) (citing Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 671 , 863 A.2d 1143 (2004)).

2019Hoon, 598 A.2d at 1045 . 9 Moreover, the Department’s post hoc attempt to distinguish Barnes from the male COTs based on the admitted violation of the Code of Ethics is unavailing because her pre-termination evaluations did not mention the incident and Rowe admitted that this isolated incident was not the motivating reason for Barnes’ removal.

2015The court explained, “This error was noted by this [c]ourt at trial and did not change the determination that the stop was lawful in light of the affiant’s other observations regarding Appellant’s driving behavior.” Id. -6- J-A03027-15 Based on our review of the suppression hearing transcript, we conclude the evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact, with the exception of its erroneous recollection that the officer observed Appellant cross over the centerline of the roadway.

2012Although the majority concludes that the WCJ was empowered to treat the penalty petition as a suspension petition as well because “[ujnder the specific facts of this case, Claimant clearly had notice that a suspension was possible, and Claimant was given an opportunity to defend against it” 56 A.3d at 72 , the question raised here is whether a defense raised in opposition to a penalty petition for an admitted violation of the Act falls outside the general rule that if an employer wants to change the character of the disability, it must file a petition specifically requesting the relief sought.

1995West Torres-dale Civic Assoc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 525 Pa. 106 , 576 A.2d 352 (1988). .Since through an admitted error on the part of the Board, each of the parties received a different written notification, we must turn then to equity principles, i.e. the concept of “vested rights.” We can see no reason, however, why the writing received by the Brunos should be considered more “valid” than the contrary notice from the Board received by Ms. Talio. .

1995West Torres-dale Civic Assoc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 525 Pa. 106 , 576 A.2d 352 (1988). .Since through an admitted error on the part of the Board, each of the parties received a different written notification, we must turn then to equity principles, i.e. the concept of “vested rights.” We can see no reason, however, why the writing received by the Brunos should be considered more “valid” than the contrary notice from the Board received by Ms. Talio. .

1991Finally, I would overrule Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Surrick, 521 Pa. 264 , 555 A.2d 883 (1989), which is an aberration designed to insulate a miscreant from peer review for acts which were an admitted violation of an attorney’s oath of office.

1991Finally, I would overrule Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Surrick, 521 Pa. 264 , 555 A.2d 883 (1989), which is an aberration designed to insulate a miscreant from peer review for acts which were an admitted violation of an attorney’s oath of office.

1986In Meitner v. State Real Estate Commission, 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 426 , 275 A.2d 417 (1971), this court found that a penalty imposed on a licensed real estate broker by the State Real Estate Commission for an admitted violation of the law was harsh under the circumstances, and remanded the cáse to the State Real Estate Commission for a reconsideration of the penalty imposed.

1986In Meitner v. State Real Estate Commission, 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 426 , 275 A.2d 417 (1971), this court found that a penalty imposed on a licensed real estate broker by the State Real Estate Commission for an admitted violation of the law was harsh under the circumstances, and remanded the cáse to the State Real Estate Commission for a reconsideration of the penalty imposed.

1983It merely calls for the court to make a finding of fact. [That is, i]nferring the existence or nonexistence of intent from objective facts and circumstances[.]" Id. at 675 , 102 S.Ct. at 2089 .

1983It merely calls for the court to make a finding of fact. [That is, i]nferring the existence or nonexistence of intent from objective facts and circumstances[.]" Id. at 675 , 102 S.Ct. at 2089 .

1980Id. at 650 , 285 A.2d at 216 .

1980Id. at 650 , 285 A.2d at 216 .

1979That section declares it unlawful: “(1) For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or *367 malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any insane person, or to any minor, or to habitual drunkards, or persons of known intemperate habits.” In Jardine v. Upper Darby Lodge No. 1973, 413 Pa. 626 , 198 A.2d 550 (1964), the Court held that a licensee who violated 4 the above section wa

1979That section declares it unlawful: “(1) For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or *367 malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any insane person, or to any minor, or to habitual drunkards, or persons of known intemperate habits.” In Jardine v. Upper Darby Lodge No. 1973, 413 Pa. 626 , 198 A.2d 550 (1964), the Court held that a licensee who violated 4 the above section wa

1959Appellant also relies strongly on Burt v. Burt, 218 Pa. 198 , 67 A. 210 .

1959Appellant also relies strongly on Burt v. Burt, 218 Pa. 198 , 67 A. 210 .

1842And the reason given by Chief Justice Marshall in Hunt v. Rousmanier, ( 8 Wheat. 174 ), is, thatHhe agent, having the legal title in the property, is capable of transferringJt in his own name, notwithstanding the death of the principal; ana the death of the principal has no operation upon his act.