expression principle in Pennsylvania

1915Torpedo Co., 190 Pa. 350 , it was said at page 353, “The maxim res ipsa loquitur is itself the expression of an exception to the general rule that negligence is not to be inferred but to be affirmatively proved.

1908The present chief justice said, in Oil Company v. Torpedo Company, 190 Pa. 350 , “The maxim res ipsa loquitur is in itself the expression of an exception to the general rule that negligence is not to be inferred but to be proved affirmatively.

1996Sedlitsky v. Pareso, 400 Pa. Super. 1 , 582 A.2d 1314 (1990).

1996Sedlitsky v. Pareso, 400 Pa. Super. 1 , 582 A.2d 1314 (1990).

1957Chief Justice Stkkn said (pages 488-492) : “e. . . assuming, arguendo, that the Laundry Company was guilty of a violation of the provisions of the statute and therefore negligent per se, such negligence was not a ground of liability unless it was the proximate and efficient cause of the accident in question: Hayes v. Schomaker, 302 Pa. 72, 77 , 152 A. 827, 829 ; Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Company, 333 Pa. 424, 427 , 5 A. 2d 182, 183 ; Shakley v. Lee, 368 Pa. 476, 478 , 84 A. 2d 322, 323 ; Purol, Inc. v. Great Eastern System, Inc., 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 344, 345 , 197 A. 543, 544, 545 ;

1957Chief Justice Stkkn said (pages 488-492) : “e. . . assuming, arguendo, that the Laundry Company was guilty of a violation of the provisions of the statute and therefore negligent per se, such negligence was not a ground of liability unless it was the proximate and efficient cause of the accident in question: Hayes v. Schomaker, 302 Pa. 72, 77 , 152 A. 827, 829 ; Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Company, 333 Pa. 424, 427 , 5 A. 2d 182, 183 ; Shakley v. Lee, 368 Pa. 476, 478 , 84 A. 2d 322, 323 ; Purol, Inc. v. Great Eastern System, Inc., 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 344, 345 , 197 A. 543, 544, 545 ;

1957Chief Justice Stkkn said (pages 488-492) : “e. . . assuming, arguendo, that the Laundry Company was guilty of a violation of the provisions of the statute and therefore negligent per se, such negligence was not a ground of liability unless it was the proximate and efficient cause of the accident in question: Hayes v. Schomaker, 302 Pa. 72, 77 , 152 A. 827, 829 ; Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Company, 333 Pa. 424, 427 , 5 A. 2d 182, 183 ; Shakley v. Lee, 368 Pa. 476, 478 , 84 A. 2d 322, 323 ; Purol, Inc. v. Great Eastern System, Inc., 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 344, 345 , 197 A. 543, 544, 545 ;

1957Chief Justice Stkkn said (pages 488-492) : “e. . . assuming, arguendo, that the Laundry Company was guilty of a violation of the provisions of the statute and therefore negligent per se, such negligence was not a ground of liability unless it was the proximate and efficient cause of the accident in question: Hayes v. Schomaker, 302 Pa. 72, 77 , 152 A. 827, 829 ; Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Company, 333 Pa. 424, 427 , 5 A. 2d 182, 183 ; Shakley v. Lee, 368 Pa. 476, 478 , 84 A. 2d 322, 323 ; Purol, Inc. v. Great Eastern System, Inc., 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 344, 345 , 197 A. 543, 544, 545 ;

1957Chief Justice Stkkn said (pages 488-492) : “e. . . assuming, arguendo, that the Laundry Company was guilty of a violation of the provisions of the statute and therefore negligent per se, such negligence was not a ground of liability unless it was the proximate and efficient cause of the accident in question: Hayes v. Schomaker, 302 Pa. 72, 77 , 152 A. 827, 829 ; Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Company, 333 Pa. 424, 427 , 5 A. 2d 182, 183 ; Shakley v. Lee, 368 Pa. 476, 478 , 84 A. 2d 322, 323 ; Purol, Inc. v. Great Eastern System, Inc., 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 344, 345 , 197 A. 543, 544, 545 ;

1957Chief Justice Stkkn said (pages 488-492) : “e. . . assuming, arguendo, that the Laundry Company was guilty of a violation of the provisions of the statute and therefore negligent per se, such negligence was not a ground of liability unless it was the proximate and efficient cause of the accident in question: Hayes v. Schomaker, 302 Pa. 72, 77 , 152 A. 827, 829 ; Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Company, 333 Pa. 424, 427 , 5 A. 2d 182, 183 ; Shakley v. Lee, 368 Pa. 476, 478 , 84 A. 2d 322, 323 ; Purol, Inc. v. Great Eastern System, Inc., 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 344, 345 , 197 A. 543, 544, 545 ;

1957Chief Justice Stkkn said (pages 488-492) : “e. . . assuming, arguendo, that the Laundry Company was guilty of a violation of the provisions of the statute and therefore negligent per se, such negligence was not a ground of liability unless it was the proximate and efficient cause of the accident in question: Hayes v. Schomaker, 302 Pa. 72, 77 , 152 A. 827, 829 ; Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Company, 333 Pa. 424, 427 , 5 A. 2d 182, 183 ; Shakley v. Lee, 368 Pa. 476, 478 , 84 A. 2d 322, 323 ; Purol, Inc. v. Great Eastern System, Inc., 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 344, 345 , 197 A. 543, 544, 545 ;

1957Chief Justice Stkkn said (pages 488-492) : “e. . . assuming, arguendo, that the Laundry Company was guilty of a violation of the provisions of the statute and therefore negligent per se, such negligence was not a ground of liability unless it was the proximate and efficient cause of the accident in question: Hayes v. Schomaker, 302 Pa. 72, 77 , 152 A. 827, 829 ; Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Company, 333 Pa. 424, 427 , 5 A. 2d 182, 183 ; Shakley v. Lee, 368 Pa. 476, 478 , 84 A. 2d 322, 323 ; Purol, Inc. v. Great Eastern System, Inc., 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 344, 345 , 197 A. 543, 544, 545 ;

2019The current expression of the doctrine was set forth in the Court’s seminal decision of Wong Sun, supra. In Wong Sun, the Court extended the exclusionary rule to verbal statements that are the “fruits” of an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

2017See, e.g., Estate of Weeks, 402 A.2d 657, 658 (Pa. 1979) (adopting Restatement of Trusts on question of whether a trust may be terminated without the consent of the settlor); In re Shoemaker, 115 A.3d 347, 355 (Pa. Super. 2015) (adopting Restatement as to the expression of the doctrine of cy pres); In re Scheidmantel, 868 A.2d 464 (Pa. Super. 2005) (noting that Pennsylvania follows the Restatement of Trusts regarding exercise of discretion by trustees); In re Barnes Foundation, 683 A.2d 894 (Pa. Super. 1996) (adopting the Restatement of Trusts regarding the doctrine of deviation with regard to

2017See, e.g., Estate of Weeks, 402 A.2d 657, 658 (Pa. 1979) (adopting Restatement of Trusts on question of whether a trust may be terminated without the consent of the settlor); In re Shoemaker, 115 A.3d 347, 355 (Pa. Super. 2015) (adopting Restatement as to the expression of the doctrine of cy pres); In re Scheidmantel, 868 A.2d 464 (Pa. Super. 2005) (noting that Pennsylvania follows the Restatement of Trusts regarding exercise of discretion by trustees); In re Barnes Foundation, 683 A.2d 894 (Pa. Super. 1996) (adopting the Restatement of Trusts regarding the doctrine of deviation with regard to

2008PASSHE emphasizes the observation in Minersville Area School District that the Court would not decide moot questions except in rare instances including “when the question to be decided is by necessity a recurring one[,]” 568 A.2d at 980 , but that is not the usual expression of this principle.

1968However, Auchenbach must be read as an expression of the rule approved sixteen years before in Commonwealth v. Allen, 70 Pa. 465 (1872), a rule with whose logic I have considerable difficulty, and would thus urge this Court to re-examine.

1968However, Auchenbach must be read as an expression of the rule approved sixteen years before in Commonwealth v. Allen, 70 Pa. 465 (1872), a rule with whose logic I have considerable difficulty, and would thus urge this Court to re-examine.

1964No act of assembly authorizes an assess ment of a state tax on personal property after the expiration of the year in which it ought to have been assessed and the taxable ought to have paid it; and yet this is what the appellants did for the years from 1876 to 1884.” A recent expression of this principle and of the rule of construction to be applied to taxing statutes is found in Commonwealth v. Allied Building Credits, Inc., 385 Pa. 370 (1956), wherein the court stated, pages 375 and 376: “ ‘...

1944A construction so uniform, so long-continued, and which has remained untouched by the legislature from 1795 to the present day, we are not at liberty to repudiate.” In Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9, 18 , was formulated the expression of the rule which, with but slight variation, has ever since been adopted by Pennsylvania judges in their charges to juries in murder cases, and thousands of trials have been, and constantly are being, conducted, in which it is employed as one of the accepted features of procedural law applicable to such cases. 3 Even were it deemed a *309 doctrine which should n

1898It is to be confined to confidential communications and knowledge derived wholly or in part from private and professional intercourse, and does not embrace those facts which the counsel may become acquainted with collaterally, or those which were from necessity, and to subserve the interests of. the client, publicly disclosed by direction of the client himself, on the trial of his cause.” This has been cited as a correct expression of the rule, in Beeson v. Beeson, 9 Pa. 279 , and Heaton v. Findlay, 12 Pa. 304 .

1898It is to be confined to confidential communications and knowledge derived wholly or in part from private and professional intercourse, and does not embrace those facts which the counsel may become acquainted with collaterally, or those which were from necessity, and to subserve the interests of. the client, publicly disclosed by direction of the client himself, on the trial of his cause.” This has been cited as a correct expression of the rule, in Beeson v. Beeson, 9 Pa. 279 , and Heaton v. Findlay, 12 Pa. 304 .

1898Thus the writer of the opinion in Haines’s Appeal, himself says in Stewart’s Appeal, 78 Pa. 88 : “The best expression of the rule, as it seems to me, is to be found in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Martin v. Graves, 5 Allen, 601 , by Mebrick, J. ‘ Whenever a deed or other instrument exists which may be vexatiously or injuriously used against a party after the evidence to impeach or invalidate it is lost, or which may throw a cloud or suspicion over his title or interest and he cannot immediately protect or maintain his right by any course or proceeding at law, a court of

1898Thus the writer of the opinion in Haines’s Appeal, himself says in Stewart’s Appeal, 78 Pa. 88 : “The best expression of the rule, as it seems to me, is to be found in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Martin v. Graves, 5 Allen, 601 , by Mebrick, J. ‘ Whenever a deed or other instrument exists which may be vexatiously or injuriously used against a party after the evidence to impeach or invalidate it is lost, or which may throw a cloud or suspicion over his title or interest and he cannot immediately protect or maintain his right by any course or proceeding at law, a court of

1898Thus the writer of the opinion in Haines’s Appeal, himself says in Stewart’s Appeal, 78 Pa. 88 : “The best expression of the rule, as it seems to me, is to be found in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Martin v. Graves, 5 Allen, 601 , by Mebrick, J. ‘ Whenever a deed or other instrument exists which may be vexatiously or injuriously used against a party after the evidence to impeach or invalidate it is lost, or which may throw a cloud or suspicion over his title or interest and he cannot immediately protect or maintain his right by any course or proceeding at law, a court of

1898Thus the writer of the opinion in Haines’s Appeal, himself says in Stewart’s Appeal, 78 Pa. 88 : “The best expression of the rule, as it seems to me, is to be found in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Martin v. Graves, 5 Allen, 601 , by Mebrick, J. ‘ Whenever a deed or other instrument exists which may be vexatiously or injuriously used against a party after the evidence to impeach or invalidate it is lost, or which may throw a cloud or suspicion over his title or interest and he cannot immediately protect or maintain his right by any course or proceeding at law, a court of

1855It was overlooked when it was at tempted, 3 Watts 260 , to indicate tbe form in which unseated land taxes ought to appear in the commissioners’ office, and the attempt has given rise to some confusion. 2.