refused rule in Pennsylvania

2019In doing so, the Majority attempts to create a nexus with the untimely PCRA petition Appellant filed on November 1, 2017 by holding that “since the trial court expressly refused to rule upon Appellant’s August 10, 2016 pro se PCRA petition and since the trial court did not rule upon the August 17, 2016 petition,” Appellant’s “Amended PCRA Petition constitutes ‘an extension of [the] existing [, August 10, 2016 and August 17, 2016] petition[s] rather than a new and distinct petition.” Majority at 3, 25 (quoting Commonwealth v. Tedford, 781 A.2d 1167 , 1171 n.6 (Pa. 2001)) (brackets in original).

2019In the second case, Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 106 A. 238 (Pa. 1919), the Court refused a claim for damages, stating that Article I, Section 11 was limited to actual legal injuries, not those “suffered” pursuant to a centuries-old statute permitting the complained-of behavior.

2019Id. at 241 ; see Gormley Treatise § 14.4[g][1] (noting that Jackman is “cited in virtually every subsequent remedies case, but without any mention of the context – that the plaintiff was asking the court to overcome a statute whose principles had been established for hundreds of years”).

2002The Court refused to rule “on the admissibility of a confession in which the defendant’s name has been replaced with a symbol or neutral pronoun.” Id. at 211, n. 5 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 .

2002The Court refused to rule "on the admissibility of a confession in which the defendant's name has been replaced with a symbol or neutral pronoun." Id. at 211, n. 5 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 .

1987Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P., Rule 238, the trial court added $187,500 in delay damages. 2 Viewed in the light most favorable to Binder as verdict winner, Fannin v. Cratty, 331 Pa.Super. 326, 331 , 480 A.2d 1056 (1984), the evidence established that Washington had agreed to replace a shaft which had broken from the center of the roll. 3 To accomplish the replacement, J & L’s purchase order specifically requested Washington to remove the remainder of the original shaft, to bore a hole through the center of the roll, and to “shrink fit” the roll onto the new shaft.

1987Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P., Rule 238, the trial court added $187,500 in delay damages. 2 Viewed in the light most favorable to Binder as verdict winner, Fannin v. Cratty, 331 Pa.Super. 326, 331 , 480 A.2d 1056 (1984), the evidence established that Washington had agreed to replace a shaft which had broken from the center of the roll. 3 To accomplish the replacement, J & L’s purchase order specifically requested Washington to remove the remainder of the original shaft, to bore a hole through the center of the roll, and to “shrink fit” the roll onto the new shaft.

1983Gilbert v. Korvette’s Inc., 457 Pa. 602 , 327 A.2d 94 (1974).

1983Gilbert v. Korvette’s Inc., 457 Pa. 602 , 327 A.2d 94 (1974).

1983On appeal, 661 F.2d 287 (CA. 3, 1981), the court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the interest rate because the case was restitutional in character to which the legal rate was inapplicable under Sack v. Feinman, supra (see paragraph C ante).

1981It did, however, instruct the jury that it should not concern itself with any possible future consequences of its verdict, stating that it was the court's duty to fix the penalty if the defendant was found "guilty." [3] Nine days after the jury's verdict of guilty was returned, this Court rendered its decision in Commonwealth v. Mulgrew, 475 Pa. 271 , 380 A.2d 349 (1977).

1981It did, however, instruct the jury that it should not concern itself with any possible future consequences of its verdict, stating that it was the court's duty to fix the penalty if the defendant was found "guilty." [3] Nine days after the jury's verdict of guilty was returned, this Court rendered its decision in Commonwealth v. Mulgrew, 475 Pa. 271 , 380 A.2d 349 (1977).

1953Defendant did not exhaust his peremptory challenges, and therefore he cannot complain that the court refused his challenge for cause: Commonwealth v. Spahr, 211 Pa. 542 , 60 A. 1084 .

1953Defendant did not exhaust his peremptory challenges, and therefore he cannot complain that the court refused his challenge for cause: Commonwealth v. Spahr, 211 Pa. 542 , 60 A. 1084 .

1953In addition, nothing short of palpable error will justify reversal of a trial judge in passing on a challenge for cause: Commonwealth v. Sushinskie, 242 Pa. 406, 413 , 89 A. 564 . (4) We have examined carefully the defendant’s position that the trial court erred in his charge to the jury on the burden of proof of insanity.

1953In addition, nothing short of palpable error will justify reversal of a trial judge in passing on a challenge for cause: Commonwealth v. Sushinskie, 242 Pa. 406, 413 , 89 A. 564 . (4) We have examined carefully the defendant’s position that the trial court erred in his charge to the jury on the burden of proof of insanity.

1920A like conclusion was reached in Commonwealth v. Wenzel, 24 Pa. Superior Ct. 467 .

1917In Com. v. Doyle, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 171 , the lower court refused a rule to show cause because of the laches of the prosecutor.

1912The facts involved were not disputed, and the court below found in favor of the claimant, which on appeal was affirmed. (12) In Gaffney’s Est., 146 Pa. 49 , a decedent in his life time made a bank deposit to the credit of himself as the “trustee for Polly McKim”; and the account so stood at the time of his death.

1912The Orphans’ Court refused his claim, and in affirming, we said (p. 236), that the money could not be shown to have been wrongfully included in the account, “for the reason ...... that the fund has been judicially ascertained to belong to the estate of ...... (the distributee).” (11) In Smith’s Est., 144 Pa. 428 , upon the adjudication of the account of an executor certain coupons embraced therein were claimed by a third party.