inapplicability rule in Pennsylvania

2023The Commonwealth argues that the evidence established that the building was not abandoned, citing Commonwealth v. Henderson, 419 A.2d 1366 (Pa. Super. 1980), where this Court held that the General Assembly intended “abandon” to track the dictionary definition meaning of “wholly forsaken or deserted.” Id.

2023The Commonwealth argues that the evidence established that the building was not abandoned, citing Commonwealth v. Henderson, 419 A.2d 1366 (Pa. Super. 1980), where this Court held that the General Assembly intended “abandon” to track the dictionary definition meaning of “wholly forsaken or deserted.” Id.

2011As Blye himself acknowledges: In light of Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 , 813 A.2d 726 (2002), clarified 573 Pa. 141 , 821 A.2d 1246 (2003) and the inapplicability here of the exception under Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831 (2003), cert. denied sub nom.

2011As Blye himself acknowledges: In light of Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 , 813 A.2d 726 (2002), clarified 573 Pa. 141 , 821 A.2d 1246 (2003) and the inapplicability here of the exception under Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831 (2003), cert. denied sub nom.

2011Bomar v. Pennsylvania, 540 U.S. 1115 [ 124 S.Ct. 1053 , 157 L.Ed.2d 906 ] (2004), this claim appears underdeveloped — not waived — for review on the merits on this direct appeal.

2011Bomar v. Pennsylvania, 540 U.S. 1115 [ 124 S.Ct. 1053 , 157 L.Ed.2d 906 ] (2004), this claim appears underdeveloped — not waived — for review on the merits on this direct appeal.

2011Bomar v. Pennsylvania, 540 U.S. 1115 [ 124 S.Ct. 1053 , 157 L.Ed.2d 906 ] (2004), this claim appears underdeveloped — not waived — for review on the merits on this direct appeal.

2011As Blye himself acknowledges: In light of Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 , 813 A.2d 726 (2002), clarified 573 Pa. 141 , 821 A.2d 1246 (2003) and the inapplicability here of the exception under Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831 (2003), cert. denied sub nom.

2011As Blye himself acknowledges: In light of Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 , 813 A.2d 726 (2002), clarified 573 Pa. 141 , 821 A.2d 1246 (2003) and the inapplicability here of the exception under Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831 (2003), cert. denied sub nom.

2011As Blye himself acknowledges: In light of Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 , 813 A.2d 726 (2002), clarified 573 Pa. 141 , 821 A.2d 1246 (2003) and the inapplicability here of the exception under Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831 (2003), cert. denied sub nom.

2011As Blye himself acknowledges: In light of Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 , 813 A.2d 726 (2002), clarified 573 Pa. 141 , 821 A.2d 1246 (2003) and the inapplicability here of the exception under Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831 (2003), cert. denied sub nom.

2000If, despite the inapplicability of the doctrine, the plaintiffs negligence contributed to the sustaining of injury, the apportionment of responsibility will follow naturally under comparative negligence law and the defendant will be relieved of responsibility commensurately, if not altogether. .The Supreme Court, as evidenced by the lead opinions in the cases of Howell v. Clyde, 533 Pa. 151 , 620 A.2d 1107 (1993), and Rutter v. Northeastern Beaver County School District, 496 Pa. 590 , 437 A.2d 1198 (1981), twice attempted to abolish the doctrine but came up short of the necessary votes to gain

2000If, despite the inapplicability of the doctrine, the plaintiffs negligence contributed to the sustaining of injury, the apportionment of responsibility will follow naturally under comparative negligence law and the defendant will be relieved of responsibility commensurately, if not altogether. .The Supreme Court, as evidenced by the lead opinions in the cases of Howell v. Clyde, 533 Pa. 151 , 620 A.2d 1107 (1993), and Rutter v. Northeastern Beaver County School District, 496 Pa. 590 , 437 A.2d 1198 (1981), twice attempted to abolish the doctrine but came up short of the necessary votes to gain

2000If, despite the inapplicability of the doctrine, the plaintiffs negligence contributed to the sustaining of injury, the apportionment of responsibility will follow naturally under comparative negligence law and the defendant will be relieved of responsibility commensurately, if not altogether. .The Supreme Court, as evidenced by the lead opinions in the cases of Howell v. Clyde, 533 Pa. 151 , 620 A.2d 1107 (1993), and Rutter v. Northeastern Beaver County School District, 496 Pa. 590 , 437 A.2d 1198 (1981), twice attempted to abolish the doctrine but came up short of the necessary votes to gain

2000If, despite the inapplicability of the doctrine, the plaintiffs negligence contributed to the sustaining of injury, the apportionment of responsibility will follow naturally under comparative negligence law and the defendant will be relieved of responsibility commensurately, if not altogether. .The Supreme Court, as evidenced by the lead opinions in the cases of Howell v. Clyde, 533 Pa. 151 , 620 A.2d 1107 (1993), and Rutter v. Northeastern Beaver County School District, 496 Pa. 590 , 437 A.2d 1198 (1981), twice attempted to abolish the doctrine but came up short of the necessary votes to gain

1996Issue XI, claiming the failure of counsel to cite Commonwealth v. West, 270 Pa.Super. 301 , 411 A.2d 537 (1979), in connection with Issue G (error to order disclosure of witness list) is specious and does not warrant extended discussion except to observe that the trial court was *542 within its authority in seeking a witness list to inquire of the jury if anyone knew of the proposed witness(es) to avoid any chance of a mistrial in the absence of such a precaution.

1996Issue XI, claiming the failure of counsel to cite Commonwealth v. West, 270 Pa.Super. 301 , 411 A.2d 537 (1979), in connection with Issue G (error to order disclosure of witness list) is specious and does not warrant extended discussion except to observe that the trial court was *542 within its authority in seeking a witness list to inquire of the jury if anyone knew of the proposed witness(es) to avoid any chance of a mistrial in the absence of such a precaution.

1996As to Issue X, wherein the "right to privacy” remarks of the court to the jury (as not being a defense) were permitted for jury consideration without counsel’s objection, our discussion supra as to the inapplicability of such a defense (see Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 602 , 97 S.Ct. 869, 877-78 , 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977)) dispenses with the need to address it here under the cloak of an ineffectiveness of counsel claim.

1996As to Issue X, wherein the "right to privacy” remarks of the court to the jury (as not being a defense) were permitted for jury consideration without counsel’s objection, our discussion supra as to the inapplicability of such a defense (see Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 602 , 97 S.Ct. 869, 877-78 , 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977)) dispenses with the need to address it here under the cloak of an ineffectiveness of counsel claim.

1977Id. 467 Pa. at 277 , 356 A.2d at 748 .

1977Id. 467 Pa. at 277 , 356 A.2d at 748 .

1937Res adjudicata exists where the four following conditions concur: “(1) Identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and of parties to the action; (4) identity of the quality in the persons for or against whom the claim is made”: Bucks v. American Cigar Box Lumber Co., 112 Pa. Superior Ct. 193, 197 .

1927In Gearhart v. Jordan, 11 Pa. 325 , it was said, speaking of the rule we are considering, “Yet, when the funds or subjects of lien belong to different persons, the inquiry is whether the debt, which is a lien on both of them, or any part of it, ought in justice to be paid by one of them in relief of the other.” See also Huston’s App., 69 Pa. 485 ; Ebenhardt’s App., 8 W. & S. 327 ; Holt v. Bodey, 18 Pa. 207 ; Fessler v. Hickernell, 82 Pa. 150 ; Knouf’s App., 91 Pa. 78 ; Stewart v. Stewart, 207 Pa. 59 ; Miller’s App., 119 Pa. 620 .

1927In Gearhart v. Jordan, 11 Pa. 325 , it was said, speaking of the rule we are considering, “Yet, when the funds or subjects of lien belong to different persons, the inquiry is whether the debt, which is a lien on both of them, or any part of it, ought in justice to be paid by one of them in relief of the other.” See also Huston’s App., 69 Pa. 485 ; Ebenhardt’s App., 8 W. & S. 327 ; Holt v. Bodey, 18 Pa. 207 ; Fessler v. Hickernell, 82 Pa. 150 ; Knouf’s App., 91 Pa. 78 ; Stewart v. Stewart, 207 Pa. 59 ; Miller’s App., 119 Pa. 620 .

1927In Gearhart v. Jordan, 11 Pa. 325 , it was said, speaking of the rule we are considering, “Yet, when the funds or subjects of lien belong to different persons, the inquiry is whether the debt, which is a lien on both of them, or any part of it, ought in justice to be paid by one of them in relief of the other.” See also Huston’s App., 69 Pa. 485 ; Ebenhardt’s App., 8 W. & S. 327 ; Holt v. Bodey, 18 Pa. 207 ; Fessler v. Hickernell, 82 Pa. 150 ; Knouf’s App., 91 Pa. 78 ; Stewart v. Stewart, 207 Pa. 59 ; Miller’s App., 119 Pa. 620 .

1927In Gearhart v. Jordan, 11 Pa. 325 , it was said, speaking of the rule we are considering, “Yet, when the funds or subjects of lien belong to different persons, the inquiry is whether the debt, which is a lien on both of them, or any part of it, ought in justice to be paid by one of them in relief of the other.” See also Huston’s App., 69 Pa. 485 ; Ebenhardt’s App., 8 W. & S. 327 ; Holt v. Bodey, 18 Pa. 207 ; Fessler v. Hickernell, 82 Pa. 150 ; Knouf’s App., 91 Pa. 78 ; Stewart v. Stewart, 207 Pa. 59 ; Miller’s App., 119 Pa. 620 .

1927In Gearhart v. Jordan, 11 Pa. 325 , it was said, speaking of the rule we are considering, “Yet, when the funds or subjects of lien belong to different persons, the inquiry is whether the debt, which is a lien on both of them, or any part of it, ought in justice to be paid by one of them in relief of the other.” See also Huston’s App., 69 Pa. 485 ; Ebenhardt’s App., 8 W. & S. 327 ; Holt v. Bodey, 18 Pa. 207 ; Fessler v. Hickernell, 82 Pa. 150 ; Knouf’s App., 91 Pa. 78 ; Stewart v. Stewart, 207 Pa. 59 ; Miller’s App., 119 Pa. 620 .

1927In Gearhart v. Jordan, 11 Pa. 325 , it was said, speaking of the rule we are considering, “Yet, when the funds or subjects of lien belong to different persons, the inquiry is whether the debt, which is a lien on both of them, or any part of it, ought in justice to be paid by one of them in relief of the other.” See also Huston’s App., 69 Pa. 485 ; Ebenhardt’s App., 8 W. & S. 327 ; Holt v. Bodey, 18 Pa. 207 ; Fessler v. Hickernell, 82 Pa. 150 ; Knouf’s App., 91 Pa. 78 ; Stewart v. Stewart, 207 Pa. 59 ; Miller’s App., 119 Pa. 620 .

1927In Gearhart v. Jordan, 11 Pa. 325 , it was said, speaking of the rule we are considering, “Yet, when the funds or subjects of lien belong to different persons, the inquiry is whether the debt, which is a lien on both of them, or any part of it, ought in justice to be paid by one of them in relief of the other.” See also Huston’s App., 69 Pa. 485 ; Ebenhardt’s App., 8 W. & S. 327 ; Holt v. Bodey, 18 Pa. 207 ; Fessler v. Hickernell, 82 Pa. 150 ; Knouf’s App., 91 Pa. 78 ; Stewart v. Stewart, 207 Pa. 59 ; Miller’s App., 119 Pa. 620 .

1927In Gearhart v. Jordan, 11 Pa. 325 , it was said, speaking of the rule we are considering, “Yet, when the funds or subjects of lien belong to different persons, the inquiry is whether the debt, which is a lien on both of them, or any part of it, ought in justice to be paid by one of them in relief of the other.” See also Huston’s App., 69 Pa. 485 ; Ebenhardt’s App., 8 W. & S. 327 ; Holt v. Bodey, 18 Pa. 207 ; Fessler v. Hickernell, 82 Pa. 150 ; Knouf’s App., 91 Pa. 78 ; Stewart v. Stewart, 207 Pa. 59 ; Miller’s App., 119 Pa. 620 .

1893Co., 148 Pa. 180 , affords a still more striking illustration of the inapplicability of the rule of the highest possible care, in the case of an injured passenger, and of the necessity of affirmative proof of actual negligence, before a recovery could he had.