case of clear error in Pennsylvania

1965Whether Morris was qualified was a question for-the sound discretion of the trial Judge and his ruling-will not be reversed by an appellate Court except in the case of clear error: Stevenson v. East Deer Township, 379 Pa. 103 , 108 A. 2d 815 , and a host of cases cited therein.

1965Whether Morris was qualified was a question for-the sound discretion of the trial Judge and his ruling-will not be reversed by an appellate Court except in the case of clear error: Stevenson v. East Deer Township, 379 Pa. 103 , 108 A. 2d 815 , and a host of cases cited therein.

1989The applicant first argues that the trial court committed error by engaging in an independent evaluation of the competence of the applicant’s witness, citing Harman Coal Co. v. Department of Environmental Resources, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 610 , 384 A.2d 289 (1978), for the proposition that the competence of a witness to testify in terms of qualifications is a matter within the discretion of the trier of fact, and his or her decision will not be disturbed except in a case of clear error.

1989The applicant first argues that the trial court committed error by engaging in an independent evaluation of the competence of the applicant’s witness, citing Harman Coal Co. v. Department of Environmental Resources, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 610 , 384 A.2d 289 (1978), for the proposition that the competence of a witness to testify in terms of qualifications is a matter within the discretion of the trier of fact, and his or her decision will not be disturbed except in a case of clear error.

1978May Department Stores Company v. Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment, 441 Pa. 556 , 272 A.2d 862 (1971).

1978May Department Stores Company v. Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment, 441 Pa. 556 , 272 A.2d 862 (1971).

1965Jerome v. Laurel Pipe Line Company, supra. Appellant argues that all that can be reasonably required of it is to produce for the jury sufficient evidence of the best character attainable, since the damages were caused by appellee’s wrongful conduct, citing Commonwealth Trust Company of Pittsburgh v. Hachmeister Lind Company, 320 Pa. 233 , 181 A. 787 (1935), and Jaffe v. Alliance Metal Company, Inc., 337 Pa. 449 , 12 A. 2d 13 (1940).

1965Jerome v. Laurel Pipe Line Company, supra. Appellant argues that all that can be reasonably required of it is to produce for the jury sufficient evidence of the best character attainable, since the damages were caused by appellee’s wrongful conduct, citing Commonwealth Trust Company of Pittsburgh v. Hachmeister Lind Company, 320 Pa. 233 , 181 A. 787 (1935), and Jaffe v. Alliance Metal Company, Inc., 337 Pa. 449 , 12 A. 2d 13 (1940).

1965Jerome v. Laurel Pipe Line Company, supra. Appellant argues that all that can be reasonably required of it is to produce for the jury sufficient evidence of the best character attainable, since the damages were caused by appellee’s wrongful conduct, citing Commonwealth Trust Company of Pittsburgh v. Hachmeister Lind Company, 320 Pa. 233 , 181 A. 787 (1935), and Jaffe v. Alliance Metal Company, Inc., 337 Pa. 449 , 12 A. 2d 13 (1940).

1965Jerome v. Laurel Pipe Line Company, supra. Appellant argues that all that can be reasonably required of it is to produce for the jury sufficient evidence of the best character attainable, since the damages were caused by appellee’s wrongful conduct, citing Commonwealth Trust Company of Pittsburgh v. Hachmeister Lind Company, 320 Pa. 233 , 181 A. 787 (1935), and Jaffe v. Alliance Metal Company, Inc., 337 Pa. 449 , 12 A. 2d 13 (1940).