below error in Pennsylvania

2022Gimbara, 835 A.2d at 373–74 (quoting Commonwealth v. Failor, … 770 A.2d 310, 313 ([Pa.] 2001)).

2021Gimbara, 835 A.2d at 373–74 (quoting Commonwealth v. Failor, 770 A.2d 310, 313 (Pa. 2001)).

1938As the court below did not pass upon this petition, but relied solely upon the assumption that the Mortgage Deficiency Act governed appellants’ remedies, the case must be remanded so that it may be considered in the light of Hettler v. Shephard, supra. Reversed at the cost of appellee.

1938As the court below did not pass upon this petition, but relied solely upon the assumption that the Mortgage Deficiency Act governed appellants' remedies, the case must be remanded so that it may be considered in the light of Hettler v. Shephard , supra. Reversed at the cost of appellee.

1915We have taken occasion in several recent cases to point out that under our equity rules each assignment of error must be self sustaining, that is, it must show the exception taken in the court below to the ruling complained of, the action upon the exception—in totidem verbis—and the ‘pages must be stated where the matter referred to is to be found in the paper books of appendix.’ (See Prenatt v. Messenger Printing Co., 241 Pa. 267 , and cases there cited).” And again in Ridgway v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry.

1914We have taken occasion in several recent cases to point out that under our equity rules each assignment of error must be self sustaining, that is, it must show the exception taken in the court below to, the ruling complained of, the action upon the exception — in totidem verbis — and the “pages must be stated where the matter referred to is to be found in the paper books or appendix.” (See, Prenatt v. Messenger Printing Co., 241 Pa. 267 , and cases there cited: Kane & Elk R.

1980Pa.R.Crim.P. 306, 307. *153 Appellant lastly contends that the court failed to sufficiently articulate the reasons for the sentence imposed, as required by Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115 , 377 A.2d 140 (1977).

1980Pa.R.Crim.P. 306, 307. *153 Appellant lastly contends that the court failed to sufficiently articulate the reasons for the sentence imposed, as required by Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115 , 377 A.2d 140 (1977).

1978PRICE, Judge, concurring and dissenting: I agree with the majority that this case should be remanded to the court below for a hearing under Commonwealth v. Twiggs, 460 Pa. 105 , 331 A.2d 440 (1975).

1978PRICE, Judge, concurring and dissenting: I agree with the majority that this case should be remanded to the court below for a hearing under Commonwealth v. Twiggs, 460 Pa. 105 , 331 A.2d 440 (1975).

1977When examining this contention we should be mindful of the following excerpts from the case of West Homestead Borough School District v. Allegheny County Board of School Directors, 440 Pa. 113, 117-18 , 269 A.2d 904, 906-07 (1970): Preliminarily we should repeat that there is technically no such thing as ‘equity jurisdiction,’ even though that phrase has been loosely used in opinions of this Court in the past.

1976In Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 563 , 319 A.2d 142 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1000 , 95 S.Ct. 316 , 42 L.

1976In Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 563 , 319 A.2d 142 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1000 , 95 S.Ct. 316 , 42 L.

1976Based upon his testimony and the hospital's medical records relative to DeWolf, which were received into evidence, the court found as "facts that Harold DeWolf was both mentally and physically unable to cooperate, and further, that any attempt to force confrontation upon him would have been both unreliable and dangerous in its effect." In Commonwealth v. Minnick, 432 Pa. 462, 464 , 247 A.2d 569, 571 (1968), we stated that findings of fact by the trial judge in a hearing under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act "if supported by evidence in the record may not be overturned." See also Commonwealth v

1976Based upon his testimony and the hospital's medical records relative to DeWolf, which were received into evidence, the court found as "facts that Harold DeWolf was both mentally and physically unable to cooperate, and further, that any attempt to force confrontation upon him would have been both unreliable and dangerous in its effect." In Commonwealth v. Minnick, 432 Pa. 462, 464 , 247 A.2d 569, 571 (1968), we stated that findings of fact by the trial judge in a hearing under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act "if supported by evidence in the record may not be overturned." See also Commonwealth v

1976In Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 563 , 319 A.2d 142 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1000 , 95 S.Ct. 316 , 42 L.

1976In Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 563 , 319 A.2d 142 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1000 , 95 S.Ct. 316 , 42 L.

1976In Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 563 , 319 A.2d 142 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1000 , 95 S.Ct. 316 , 42 L.

1975It should first be noted that the adjudication of the Board was rendered prior to the recent amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §1 et seq. (more specifically amended by Act No. 12 of 1972, enacted February 8, 1972, effective May 1, 1972) and as interpreted by this Court in the case of Universal Cyclops Steel Corporation v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176 , 305 A. 2d 757 (1973).

1975It should first be noted that the adjudication of the Board was rendered prior to the recent amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §1 et seq. (more specifically amended by Act No. 12 of 1972, enacted February 8, 1972, effective May 1, 1972) and as interpreted by this Court in the case of Universal Cyclops Steel Corporation v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176 , 305 A. 2d 757 (1973).

1972The present case is governed by our previous decision in Commonwealth v. Gazal, 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 91 , 137 A.2d 814 (1958), wherein we rejected as without merit a claim similar to the one pressed by the present defendant. *280 In Gazal the defendant was tried for operating a lottery and possession of numbers slips.

1972The present case is governed by our previous decision in Commonwealth v. Gazal, 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 91 , 137 A.2d 814 (1958), wherein we rejected as without merit a claim similar to the one pressed by the present defendant. *280 In Gazal the defendant was tried for operating a lottery and possession of numbers slips.

1972Weight, P. J., would affirm on the opinion of Judge Bloom. 1 Commonwealth v. Wingert, 173 Pa. Superior Ct 613, 98 A. 2d 203 (1953); Commonwealth v. O’Malley, 105 Pa. Superior Ct 232 (1932).

1972In Commonwealth v. Archambault, 433 Pa. 336 , 250 A. 2d 811 , we remanded the case to the Court below for a hearing on whether Archambault's failure to take an appeal was due to his lawyers' advice, or to his fear of receiving the death penalty at a second trial.

1972In Commonwealth v. Archambault, 433 Pa. 336 , 250 A. 2d 811 , we remanded the case to the Court below for a hearing on whether Archambault's failure to take an appeal was due to his lawyers' advice, or to his fear of receiving the death penalty at a second trial.

1972The evidence amply supports the finding of the court below and no error of law appears in the record.” 359 Pa. at 538 , 59 A. 2d at 927 .

1972The evidence amply supports the finding of the court below and no error of law appears in the record.” 359 Pa. at 538 , 59 A. 2d at 927 .

1971“Judgment of sentence vacated and the record remanded to the court below for a hearing consistent with the views expressed in this opinion and for a determination, after such hearing of the appropriate sentence.” Commonwealth v. Mount, supra, 435 Pa. at 427-28 , 257 A. 2d at 582 .

1971“Judgment of sentence vacated and the record remanded to the court below for a hearing consistent with the views expressed in this opinion and for a determination, after such hearing of the appropriate sentence.” Commonwealth v. Mount, supra, 435 Pa. at 427-28 , 257 A. 2d at 582 .

1969Although the de tective said that he had looked up their criminal records before swearing out a complaint, and appellants’ counsel concedes that they had records, there is no indication in the record before us that appellants’ records of prior convictions were introduced into evidence either before the magistrate or upon hearing de novo: Indeed, the Commonwealth makes much of the fact that “the magistrate properly held appellants without regard to their- criminal records” and that “the only evidence of a criminal record was elicited by appellants’ counsel during his examination of [the detecti

1969Although the de tective said that he had looked up their criminal records before swearing out a complaint, and appellants’ counsel concedes that they had records, there is no indication in the record before us that appellants’ records of prior convictions were introduced into evidence either before the magistrate or upon hearing de novo: Indeed, the Commonwealth makes much of the fact that “the magistrate properly held appellants without regard to their- criminal records” and that “the only evidence of a criminal record was elicited by appellants’ counsel during his examination of [the detecti

1968Plaintiff relies principally upon Murphy v. Smith, 415 Pa. 512 (1964).

1968We are of the opinion that the court below applied a standard of strictness rather than one of liberality in concluding that justice did not require that the judgment be set aside”. 22 Finally, it is contended by plaintiff that the case of Howland v. Home Insurance Company, supra, has been impliedly overruled by subsequent cases.

1964In so holding, the court stated, inter alia: “In the face of the absence' of any evidence of the intent of the parties when the *604 account was opened and in the absence further of any evidence of a gift by the decedent to her children, we find that the said account . . . was and is the property of [the decedent] and her estate . . . .” On appeal to this Court, we held ( 412 Pa. 156 , 194 A. 2d 158 ) that the evidence failed to establish the original ownership of the moneys deposited in this account and we remanded the record to the court below “for the purpose of ascertaining, if possible, t

1964In so holding, the court stated, inter alia: “In the face of the absence' of any evidence of the intent of the parties when the *604 account was opened and in the absence further of any evidence of a gift by the decedent to her children, we find that the said account . . . was and is the property of [the decedent] and her estate . . . .” On appeal to this Court, we held ( 412 Pa. 156 , 194 A. 2d 158 ) that the evidence failed to establish the original ownership of the moneys deposited in this account and we remanded the record to the court below “for the purpose of ascertaining, if possible, t

1963The court below applied the rule cited in Grady v. Schiffer, 384 Pa. 302 , that “if a judgment is entered and confessed for more than is owing, the court may open it in its entirety.” In that case the judgment was stricken because it included items for which the confession was not authorized.