availability defense in Pennsylvania

1991The factors were: In making the determination as to the admissibility of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes, the trial court should consider: 1) the degree to which the commission of the prior offense reflects upon the veracity of the defendant-witness; 2) the likelihood, in view of the nature and extent of the prior record, that it would have a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant and suggest a propensity to commit the crime for which he stands charged, rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting him as an untruthful person; 3) the age and circumstanc

1991The factors were: In making the determination as to the admissibility of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes, the trial court should consider: 1) the degree to which the commission of the prior offense reflects upon the veracity of the defendant-witness; 2) the likelihood, in view of the nature and extent of the prior record, that it would have a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant and suggest a propensity to commit the crime for which he stands charged, rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting him as an untruthful person; 3) the age and circumstanc

2026This Court determines whether a Commonwealth employee is protected by sovereign immunity by considering “whether the . . . employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment; whether the alleged act which causes injury was negligent and damages would be recoverable but for the availability of the immunity defense; and whether the act fits within [1] of the [10] exceptions to sovereign immunity.”[5] Id. at 122 (quoting La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145, 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)); see also Section 8522 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522, commonly known as the Sovereign Immunity

2025The threshold questions in determining whether a Commonwealth party may be liable for negligent employee actions are “whether the Commonwealth employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment; whether the alleged act which causes injury was negligent and damages would be recoverable but for the availability of the immunity defense; and whether the act fits within one of the nine exceptions to sovereign immunity.” La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145, 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8522(b)(3) allows litigants to raise “claims for damages caused by … [t]he care, custody or c

2024This Court set forth the following factors that a trial court must consider when determining whether to admit evidence of a conviction from outside the ten-year lookback period: 1) the degree to which the commission of the prior offense reflects upon the veracity of the defendant-witness; 2) the likelihood, in view of the nature and extent of the prior record, that it would have a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant and suggest a propensity to commit the crime for which he stands charged, rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting him as an untruthful person;

2024This Court set forth the following factors that a trial court must consider when determining whether to admit evidence of a conviction from outside the ten-year lookback period: 1) the degree to which the commission of the prior offense reflects upon the veracity of the defendant-witness; 2) the likelihood, in view of the nature and extent of the prior record, that it would have a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant and suggest a propensity to commit the crime for which he stands charged, rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting him as an untruthful person;

2024This Court set forth the following factors that a trial court must consider when determining whether to admit evidence of a conviction from outside the ten-year lookback period: 1) the degree to which the commission of the prior offense reflects upon the veracity of the defendant-witness; 2) the likelihood, in view of the nature and extent of the prior record, that it would have a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant and suggest a propensity to commit the crime for which he stands charged, rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting him as an untruthful person;

2024This Court set forth the following factors that a trial court must consider when determining whether to admit evidence of a conviction from outside the ten-year lookback period: 1) the degree to which the commission of the prior offense reflects upon the veracity of the defendant-witness; 2) the likelihood, in view of the nature and extent of the prior record, that it would have a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant and suggest a propensity to commit the crime for which he stands charged, rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting him as an untruthful person;

2016Commonwealth v. Palo, 24 A.3d 1050, 1056 (Pa. Super. 2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Harris, 884 A.2d 920, 925 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

2014Commonwealth v. Palo, 24 A.3d 1050, 1056 (Pa. Super. 2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Harris, 884 A.2d 920, 925 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

2021"It is only when the crimen falsi conviction is more than ten years old ... that evidence of the conviction becomes conditioned on the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighing its potential prejudicial effect." Commonwealth v. Hoover, 630 Pa. 599, 612-13 , 107 A.3d 723, 730-31 (2014), citing Pa. R.E. 609(b)(1).

2021"It is only when the crimen falsi conviction is more than ten years old ... that evidence of the conviction becomes conditioned on the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighing its potential prejudicial effect." Commonwealth v. Hoover, 630 Pa. 599, 612-13 , 107 A.3d 723, 730-31 (2014), citing Pa. R.E. 609(b)(1).

2023See Williams v. Syed, 782 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). 10 the scope of his or her employment; whether the alleged act which causes injury was negligent and damages would be recoverable but for the availability of the immunity defense; and whether the act fits within one of the nine exceptions to sovereign immunity.” Id. at 122 (quoting La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145, 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)); see also Section 8522 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522, commonly known as the Sovereign Immunity Act (Act).

2023See Williams v. Syed, 782 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). 10 the scope of his or her employment; whether the alleged act which causes injury was negligent and damages would be recoverable but for the availability of the immunity defense; and whether the act fits within one of the nine exceptions to sovereign immunity.” Id. at 122 (quoting La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145, 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)); see also Section 8522 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522, commonly known as the Sovereign Immunity Act (Act).

1994Although it may be difficult for a factfinder to believe that a person who has denied any criminal wrongdoing was entrapped into doing a criminal act, the law of this Commonwealth does not bar a jury instruction on entrapment on the basis of a jury’s potential incredulity. 520 Pa. at 312-313 , 554 A.2d at 14 (emphasis in original).

1994Although it may be difficult for a factfinder to believe that a person who has denied any criminal wrongdoing was entrapped into doing a criminal act, the law of this Commonwealth does not bar a jury instruction on entrapment on the basis of a jury’s potential incredulity. 520 Pa. at 312-313 , 554 A.2d at 14 (emphasis in original).

2024Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211,1227 (Pa. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Randall, 528 A.2d 1326, 1328 (Pa. 1987)).

2014Id. at 1328 (quoting Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33 , 393 A.2d 364, 367 (1978), abrogated in part as stated in Commonwealth v. Rivera, 603 Pa. 340 , 983 A.2d 1211 (2009)).

1988“Determination of the issues of competing values and, therefore, the availability of the defense of necessity is precluded, how ever, when there has been a deliberate legislative choice as to the values at issue.” State v. Warshow, 138 Vt. 22, 27 , 410 A.2d 1000, 1003 (1979) (Hill, J., concurring).

1988“Determination of the issues of competing values and, therefore, the availability of the defense of necessity is precluded, how ever, when there has been a deliberate legislative choice as to the values at issue.” State v. Warshow, 138 Vt. 22, 27 , 410 A.2d 1000, 1003 (1979) (Hill, J., concurring).

2025See PA Energy Vision, LLC v. South Avis Realty, Inc., 120 A.3d 1008, 1014-1015 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 138 A.3d 6 (Pa. 2016).

2025See Williams v. Stickman, 917 A.2d 915 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

2025See PA Energy Vision, LLC v. South Avis Realty, Inc., 120 A.3d 1008, 1014-1015 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 138 A.3d 6 (Pa. 2016).

2024Lawrence, 313 A.3d at 275 (cleaned up).

2022Stated somewhat differently, “a bid irregularity may only be clarified or disregarded as a waivable defect if the effect of a waiver of that term: (1) would not deprive the bid solicitor of an adequate assurance that the contract would be performed according to its specified requirements and (2) would not advantage the bidder over the other bidders.” Cardiac Science, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 808 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). 1.

2022Gaeta, 788 A.2d at 367-68 (internal citations omitted). 11 In Gaeta, our Supreme Court determined that the above “formulation represents an apt synthesis of prevailing Pennsylvania precedent on the assessment of the availability of waiver and cure in the public works setting,” and it adopted such test as the basis for determining whether a proposal is fatally defective or, in other words, “non-responsive.” Id. at 368 .

2022Gaeta, 788 A.2d at 367-68 (internal citations omitted). 11 In Gaeta, our Supreme Court determined that the above “formulation represents an apt synthesis of prevailing Pennsylvania precedent on the assessment of the availability of waiver and cure in the public works setting,” and it adopted such test as the basis for determining whether a proposal is fatally defective or, in other words, “non-responsive.” Id. at 368 .

2017The Law does not require the claimant to “be available for full-time work, for permanent work, for his most recent work, or for his customary job, so long as the claimant is ready, willing and able to accept some suitable work.” Rohde v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 28 A.3d 237, 243 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

2017The Law does not require the claimant to "be available for full-time work, for. permanent work, for his most recent work, or for his customary job, so long as the claimant is ready, willing and able to accept some suitable work.” Rohde v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 28 A.3d 237, 243 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

2016Corp., 657 A.2d 511, 514 (Pa. Super. 1995). -2- J-A27037-16 instruction regarding the availability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?

2004Compare, e.g., Commonwealth v. Stokes, 576 Pa. 299, 304-05 , 839 A.2d 226, 229 (2003) (finding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to present, inter alia, mental-health mitigation previously litigated on direct appeal where the defendant had pursued a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the no-significant-history-of-prior-convictions mitigator), with Stokes, 576 Pa. at 314 , 839 A.2d at 235-36 (Saylor, J., dissenting) (taking the contrary view).

2004Compare, e.g., Commonwealth v. Stokes, 576 Pa. 299, 304-05 , 839 A.2d 226, 229 (2003) (finding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to present, inter alia, mental-health mitigation previously litigated on direct appeal where the defendant had pursued a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the no-significant-history-of-prior-convictions mitigator), with Stokes, 576 Pa. at 314 , 839 A.2d at 235-36 (Saylor, J., dissenting) (taking the contrary view).

2004See Majority Opinion, at ____ n. 15, 863 A.2d at 530 n. 15.