difference analysis in Pennsylvania

2014Id.

2012Id.

2020“At the outset, it is important to note that the fact that the [Judge’s] orders were entered without opinions does not make a difference in our analysis of the 3 In Zane v. Friends Hospital, 836 A.2d 25 (Pa. 2003), our Supreme Court explained: Among rules that comprise the law of the case doctrine are that: “(1) upon remand for further proceedings, a trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the appellate court in the matter; (2) upon a second appeal, an appellate court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the same appe

2020“At the outset, it is important to note that the fact that the [Judge’s] orders were entered without opinions does not make a difference in our analysis of the 3 In Zane v. Friends Hospital, 836 A.2d 25 (Pa. 2003), our Supreme Court explained: Among rules that comprise the law of the case doctrine are that: “(1) upon remand for further proceedings, a trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the appellate court in the matter; (2) upon a second appeal, an appellate court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the same appe

2018For purposes of deciding the present application, I find no need to discern whether this difference in standard would affect my decision on this application. - 17 - J-A04034-18 In Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 18 A.3d 1095 (Pa. 2011), in a concurring statement joined by a majority of the Justices of our Supreme Court, Justice Baer felt compelled to comment on why he believed recusal of the trial judge was necessary.

2005The Court clearly stated that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, “a court may not deviate from the guidelines on the ground that the child does not need that amount of money.” Id. 5 ¶ 7 Appellant attempts to escape the clear holding of Ball by arguing that while the guidelines assume “similarly situated parties will have reasonable needs and expenses,” he and mother are not “similarly situated to those individuals to which the guidelines are typically applied” based on the difference in their standard of living.

1982According to Cappadona , “The tort exemption provision, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8, is no more than an affirmative defense to be pleaded and proved by the party favored by it.” 159 N.J.Super. at 357 , 388 A.2d at 242 .

1982According to Cappadona , “The tort exemption provision, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8, is no more than an affirmative defense to be pleaded and proved by the party favored by it.” 159 N.J.Super. at 357 , 388 A.2d at 242 .

1943It is not enough that such might have been the case, it must actually have been the case”; and the rule in Glass’ Estate, 331 Pa. 561 , and in Hengen’s Estate, supra, where it was held that certain facts shown by the evidence could be considered in deciding what inferences should be drawn therefrom in arriving at the conclusion as to the date of one will as compared with the date of another will of the same decedent.

1931To permit defendants to maintain the [service station] in [its] present location would defeat the very purpose and intent of the building restrictions [contained in the deeds]: Dewar v. Carson, 259 Pa. 599 .” Defendants contend also that the character of the neighborhood has so changed since the date of the deeds that the restrictive clauses are no longer effective.

1913The defendant having retained the machine was bound to pay its market value, and this should have been stated with reasonable accuracy in order that his damages might be liquidated: Gould v. Gage et al., 118 Pa. 559 ; Ogden v. Beatty, 137 Pa. 197 .

1913The defendant having retained the machine was bound to pay its market value, and this should have been stated with reasonable accuracy in order that his damages might be liquidated: Gould v. Gage et al., 118 Pa. 559 ; Ogden v. Beatty, 137 Pa. 197 .

1908J., in discussing this subject, says: “Nor can there be a difference in principle between a verdict and a case stated; for the legal effect must be the same, whether the parties undertake to say the truth for themselves, or put themselves on a jury to say it for them.” In Darlington v. Gray, 5 Whart. 487 , Rogers, J., says: “The very object of a case stated, as of a special verdict, is to end the controversy by a judgment in chief on certain ascertained points.” But even if we are not to regard this special verdict as properly classified with a case stated, but rather with the pleadings, then