chancellor committed error in Pennsylvania

2006As stated in Sack v. Feinman, 489 Pa. 152, 165-66 , 413 A.2d 1059, 1066 (1980), “[n]ormally, appellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.” A final decree in equity will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.

2006As stated in Sack v. Feinman, 489 Pa. 152, 165-66 , 413 A.2d 1059, 1066 (1980), “[n]ormally, appellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.” A final decree in equity will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.

1992In reviewing equity matters, an appellate court’s standard of review is narrow, “for we are bound by the trial court’s determinations pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded to the evidence.” Hostetter v. Hoover, 378 Pa.Super. 1, 6 , 547 A.2d 1247, 1249 (1988). [A]ppellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.

1992In reviewing equity matters, an appellate court’s standard of review is narrow, “for we are bound by the trial court’s determinations pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded to the evidence.” Hostetter v. Hoover, 378 Pa.Super. 1, 6 , 547 A.2d 1247, 1249 (1988). [A]ppellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.

2018A final decree in equity will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.” Kepple v. Fairman Drilling Co., 532 Pa. 304, 312 , 615 A.2d 1298, 1302 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2018A final decree in equity will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.” Kepple v. Fairman Drilling Co., 532 Pa. 304, 312 , 615 A.2d 1298, 1302 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2017The scope of review of a final decree in equity is limited and will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.’ ” Rosen v. Rittenhouse Towers, 334 Pa.Super. 124 , 482 A.2d 1113, 1116 (1984) (quoting Sack v. Feinman, 489 Pa. 152 , 413 A.2d 1059, 1066 (1980) (citations omitted), aff'd 495 Pa. 100 , 432 A.2d 971, 973 (1981)).

2017The scope of review of a final decree in equity is limited and will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.’ ” Rosen v. Rittenhouse Towers, 334 Pa.Super. 124 , 482 A.2d 1113, 1116 (1984) (quoting Sack v. Feinman, 489 Pa. 152 , 413 A.2d 1059, 1066 (1980) (citations omitted), aff'd 495 Pa. 100 , 432 A.2d 971, 973 (1981)).

1995In Lower Frederick Township v. Clemmer, 518 Pa. 313, 322 , 543 A.2d 502, 507 (1988), our Supreme Court set forth the standard of review and the scope of review to be applied in equity actions, as follows: At the outset, we recognize that “normally, appellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.” Sack v. Feinman, 489 Pa. 152, 165-66 , 413 A.2d 1059, 1066 (1980) citing Commonwealth Department of Environmental Resources v. Pennsylvania Power Co., 461 Pa. 675 , 337 A.2d 823 (1975).

1995In Lower Frederick Township v. Clemmer, 518 Pa. 313, 322 , 543 A.2d 502, 507 (1988), our Supreme Court set forth the standard of review and the scope of review to be applied in equity actions, as follows: At the outset, we recognize that “normally, appellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.” Sack v. Feinman, 489 Pa. 152, 165-66 , 413 A.2d 1059, 1066 (1980) citing Commonwealth Department of Environmental Resources v. Pennsylvania Power Co., 461 Pa. 675 , 337 A.2d 823 (1975).

2024Phillips Gas and Oil Co. v. Jedlicka, 42 A.3d 261, 267 (Pa. 2012).

2021Phillips Gas & Oil Co. v. Jedlicka, 42 A.3d 261, 267 (Pa. 2012) (cleaned up).

1999Soderberg v. Weisel, 455 Pa.Super. 158 , 687 A.2d 839 (1997); Marchetti v. Karpowich, 446 Pa.Super. 509 , 667 A.2d 724 (1995).

1999Soderberg v. Weisel, 455 Pa.Super. 158 , 687 A.2d 839 (1997); Marchetti v. Karpowich, 446 Pa.Super. 509 , 667 A.2d 724 (1995).

2017The scope of review of a final decree in equity is limited and will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.’ ” Rosen v. Rittenhouse Towers, 334 Pa.Super. 124 , 482 A.2d 1113, 1116 (1984) (quoting Sack v. Feinman, 489 Pa. 152 , 413 A.2d 1059, 1066 (1980) (citations omitted), aff'd 495 Pa. 100 , 432 A.2d 971, 973 (1981)).

2017The scope of review of a final decree in equity is limited and will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.’ ” Rosen v. Rittenhouse Towers, 334 Pa.Super. 124 , 482 A.2d 1113, 1116 (1984) (quoting Sack v. Feinman, 489 Pa. 152 , 413 A.2d 1059, 1066 (1980) (citations omitted), aff'd 495 Pa. 100 , 432 A.2d 971, 973 (1981)).

2003Soderberg v. Weisel 455 Pa.Super. 158 , 687 A.2d 839, 842 (1997).

2003Soderberg v. Weisel 455 Pa.Super. 158 , 687 A.2d 839, 842 (1997).

2024See Hankin, 420 A.2d at 1109 (applying abuse of discretion standard). “[A]ppellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.

2020Our standard of review in an ejectment action is “limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion” and the decision of the court in an ejectment case “will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.” Roberts v. Estate of Pursley, 718 A.2d 837, 840 (Pa.Super. 1998).

2020In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Long, 934 A.2d 76, 78 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted), we noted that “ejectment is an action filed by a plaintiff who does not possess the land but has the right to possess it, against a defendant who has actual possession,” and that the purpose of such an action -2- J-A05021-20 is to determine “the immediate rights between plaintiff and defendant involved in that particular litigation.” We continued that “ejectment is a possessory action only, and can succeed only if the plaintiff is out of possession, and if he has a present right to immediate possession.” Id

2020In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Long, 934 A.2d 76, 78 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted), we noted that “ejectment is an action filed by a plaintiff who does not possess the land but has the right to possess it, against a defendant who has actual possession,” and that the purpose of such an action -2- J-A05021-20 is to determine “the immediate rights between plaintiff and defendant involved in that particular litigation.” We continued that “ejectment is a possessory action only, and can succeed only if the plaintiff is out of possession, and if he has a present right to immediate possession.” Id

2020In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Long, 934 A.2d 76, 78 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted), we noted that “ejectment is an action filed by a plaintiff who does not possess the land but has the right to possess it, against a defendant who has actual possession,” and that the purpose of such an action -2- J-A05021-20 is to determine “the immediate rights between plaintiff and defendant involved in that particular litigation.” We continued that “ejectment is a possessory action only, and can succeed only if the plaintiff is out of possession, and if he has a present right to immediate possession.” Id

2006Fuisz v. Fuisz, 527 Pa. 348, 353 , 591 A.2d 1047, 1050 (1991). ¶ 9 In response to Appellant’s initial claim, the trial court framed its reply thusly: *707 The first question is whether [Appellant] has proven a valid inter vivos gift to him from Miller. * * * * A valid inter vivos gift requires both donative intent and delivery. [Lanning v. West, 803 A.2d 753 (Pa.Super.2002) ], citing Estate of Korn, [ 332 Pa.Super. 154 ,] 480 A.2d 1233 (Pa.Super.1984).

2005Likewise, in equity matters, our standard of review.. .is limited to a determination of whether the Chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.” SHV Coal, Inc. v. Continental Grain Co., 526 Pa. 489, 495-496 , 587 A.2d 702, 705 (1991) (citation omitted). ¶ 22 Here, the trial court awarded appellees $25,000 in punitive damages, in part, on the basis appellants misappropriated appellee’s trade secrets in violation of § 757 of the Restatement of (2nd) of Torts.

2005Likewise, in equity matters, our standard of review.. .is limited to a determination of whether the Chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.” SHV Coal, Inc. v. Continental Grain Co., 526 Pa. 489, 495-496 , 587 A.2d 702, 705 (1991) (citation omitted). ¶ 22 Here, the trial court awarded appellees $25,000 in punitive damages, in part, on the basis appellants misappropriated appellee’s trade secrets in violation of § 757 of the Restatement of (2nd) of Torts.

2000The findings of fact made by the trial court will not be disturbed unless they are unsupported by competent evidence or are demonstrably capricious.” King v. Rock, 415 Pa.Super. 605 , 610 A.2d 48, 49 (1992) (quoting Roberson v. Davis, 397 Pa.Super. 292 , 580 A.2d 39, 40 (1990)) (citations omitted). ¶23 The Thorpes first claim that the court below erred in concluding that an easement by implication existed over their property for the benefit of the Daddona and Burton properties.

2000The findings of fact made by the trial court will not be disturbed unless they are unsupported by competent evidence or are demonstrably capricious.” King v. Rock, 415 Pa.Super. 605 , 610 A.2d 48, 49 (1992) (quoting Roberson v. Davis, 397 Pa.Super. 292 , 580 A.2d 39, 40 (1990)) (citations omitted). ¶23 The Thorpes first claim that the court below erred in concluding that an easement by implication existed over their property for the benefit of the Daddona and Burton properties.

2000The findings of fact made by the trial court will not be disturbed unless they are unsupported by competent evidence or are demonstrably capricious.” King v. Rock, 415 Pa.Super. 605 , 610 A.2d 48, 49 (1992) (quoting Roberson v. Davis, 397 Pa.Super. 292 , 580 A.2d 39, 40 (1990)) (citations omitted). ¶23 The Thorpes first claim that the court below erred in concluding that an easement by implication existed over their property for the benefit of the Daddona and Burton properties.

2000The findings of fact made by the trial court will not be disturbed unless they are unsupported by competent evidence or are demonstrably capricious.” King v. Rock, 415 Pa.Super. 605 , 610 A.2d 48, 49 (1992) (quoting Roberson v. Davis, 397 Pa.Super. 292 , 580 A.2d 39, 40 (1990)) (citations omitted). ¶23 The Thorpes first claim that the court below erred in concluding that an easement by implication existed over their property for the benefit of the Daddona and Burton properties.

1992STANDARD OF REVIEW: The standard of review of an appellate court when reviewing the findings of a court in equity is well established, In Moser v. DeSetta, 527 Pa. 157, 162 , 589 A.2d 679, 681 (1991), this Court stated: “[normally, appellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.” A final decree in equity will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.

1992STANDARD OF REVIEW: The standard of review of an appellate court when reviewing the findings of a court in equity is well established, In Moser v. DeSetta, 527 Pa. 157, 162 , 589 A.2d 679, 681 (1991), this Court stated: “[normally, appellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.” A final decree in equity will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.

1988Concorde Investments, Inc. v. Gallagher, 345 Pa.Super. 49, 59 , 497 A.2d 637, 642 (1985); Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa.Super. 90, 114 , 464 A.2d 1243, 1255 (1983). [AJppellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.

1988Concorde Investments, Inc. v. Gallagher, 345 Pa.Super. 49, 59 , 497 A.2d 637, 642 (1985); Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa.Super. 90, 114 , 464 A.2d 1243, 1255 (1983). [AJppellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.

1988Concorde Investments, Inc. v. Gallagher, 345 Pa.Super. 49, 59 , 497 A.2d 637, 642 (1985); Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa.Super. 90, 114 , 464 A.2d 1243, 1255 (1983). [AJppellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.

1988Concorde Investments, Inc. v. Gallagher, 345 Pa.Super. 49, 59 , 497 A.2d 637, 642 (1985); Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa.Super. 90, 114 , 464 A.2d 1243, 1255 (1983). [AJppellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion.