Case law

Papach v. Mercy Suburban Hospital

2005 Pa. Super. 345 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2005

Because the report itself was clearly hearsay, it could be properly introduced into evidence only if it was an exception to the hearsay rule. See, e.g.: Pa.R.E. 802; Rox Coal Co. v. … This Court rejected the argument and held that the issues framed by the plaintiffs Complaint required “expert testimony from a qualified witness to explain to the jury that the impact of Mrs.

Commonwealth v. Abrue

2010 Pa. Super. 196 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2010

Neither the Davis nor Allshouse decision provides any definitive guidance when the statements at issue were not made during an ongoing emergency, but also were not clearly made for the purpose of establishing past events. … Under the Davis/Allshouse “primary purpose” test, Officer Maroney’s statements do not readily qualify as either testimonial or non-testimonial. .

Com. v. Carrera, A., II

289 A.3d 1127 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2023

Our law clearly states that, absent a United States Supreme Court pronouncement, the decisions of federal courts are not binding on Pennsylvania state courts[.]”). … No extrinsic evidence such as an affidavit of probable cause was used in determining whether any of the crimes were qualifying crimes in applying the enhancement.

Kelly v. Kelly

2005 Pa. Super. 394 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2005

It directed appellant that in order to receive the benefits, she must file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with the Railroad Retirement Board, but she failed to do so. … are not established in the complaint itself?

Com. v. RPS

737 A.2d 747 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1999

That interview unquestionably establishes that L.T. has the ability to understand questions and frame somewhat appropriate answers. The child also clearly understood the difference between the truth and a lie. … Our review of the record, however, establishes that Dr. Shienvold was qualified to evaluate the child and determine whether he was capable of remembering the abuse.

Commonwealth v. Hazlett

14 Pa. Super. 352 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1900

Be that as it may, is it true that the solvency of the other members would be an immaterial fact in a case where no such qualifying circumstances appear, and where the managing partner has a right to call upon the other partners … But we fail to see how his bad reputation for truth and veracity could be established by proof of the good reputation of the opposing witness for integrity and truth.

Commonwealth v. Martinez

2007 Pa. Super. 33 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2007

¶ 6 Our standard of review is well-established: A trial court’s decision regarding access to judicial documents and proceedings is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only if the trial court … Furthermore, although not argued by the Post-Gazette, we note that there is a qualified First Amendment right of access to certain judicial proceedings and documents. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.

Reading City v. Miller

45 Pa. Super. 28 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1910

A milk and meat inspector was duly appointed and qualified in accordance with the ordinance. … That concession is enough to sustain the ordinance of February 4, 1909, in establishing a milk inspection by the city.

Commonwealth v. Hoffman

263 Pa. Super. 442 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1979

The instruction of the court on this point clearly sets forth the fact that the residence was titled in the name of the corporation. … Appellant’s seventh contention is that five material elements of the crimes charged were not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Garced, S. v. United Cerebral Palsy

307 A.3d 103 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2023

Garced had admissible medical opinions to establish causation in fact. … Appellants clearly failed to satisfy Rule 702(c)’s standard of employing generally accepted methodology in coming to their opinions to establish a causal connection between the May 2016 exposure and Garced’s claimed permanent

White v. Conestoga Title Insurance

2009 Pa. Super. 194 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2009

White established during the proceedings that Conestoga’s agent, ACBS Settlement Company, conducted the title search of "White’s property and should have easily discovered that White qualified for the refinance rate. … Section 5.7 of the Manual, concerning the refinance rate, includes no language that requires the insured to produce the prior policy in order to qualify for the discount. 3 .

Krankowski v. O'NEIL

2007 Pa. Super. 179 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2007

He adds that, because he is a civilian public servant, caselaw establishing that military housing allowances qualify as net income are not applicable to him. … Moreover, the trial court clearly specified that its decision was based on K.O.’s condition and the necessity of Mother’s attending to her care. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed 12/6/06, at 4-5).

Com. v. Sanders, K.

259 A.3d 524 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2021

[Sanders] was a professional driver and grossly deviated from the standard of conduct that a similarly qualified driver would have exercised. … The evidence here was sufficient to establish her conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, i.e., criminal recklessness.

Bianchi v. Bianchi

2004 Pa. Super. 373 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2004

The settlement agreement also established how Wife’s share of the marital portion of Husband’s pension would be calculated. … It is well-established that the paramount goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the parties’ intent.

Commonwealth v. Seigrist

253 Pa. Super. 411 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1978

These factors, appearing in a non-jury trial establish that any error was, at most, harmless. … Ditzler were “ex-con buddies” was clearly unnecessary on his part but there is no intimation that the court was searching for this answer.

Commonwealth v. Bowmaster

2014 Pa. Super. 199 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2014

Compare Simmen, 58 A.3d at 816 (defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in front driveway that served as main pathway to front door) and Gibbs, 981 A.2d at 280 (front porch did not qualify as curtilage … Clearly, die facts of the instant case are markedly different from the situation in Berkheimer .

In re T.F.

2004 Pa. Super. 112 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2004

However, she testified that she did not complete the drug programs because she either did not understand them, did not qualify for them or that she was scared of the programs. … Therefore, the weight and sufficiency of the evidence clearly supported involuntary termination of [Motherj’s parental rights. T.C.O. at 7-8.

Estate of Philip F. Young v. Louis, R.

202 A.3d 117 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2018

The only two qualifying individuals were Brinton and Caroline, so each received half: $3,149,406.50 each. This represented the vast majority of Philip’s assets. … The fact that the testator signed his will “clearly express[ed] his intent to benefit [the plaintiff].” Id. at 262.

Commonwealth v. Jones

2008 Pa. Super. 160 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2008

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Reeber gave a positive identification at trial, the trial court still issued a qualifying instruction because of Ms.

Commonwealth v. Broomell

254 Pa. Super. 574 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1978

After sentencing, he qualified for representation from the public defenders’ office. … The standard established in Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599 , 235 A.2d 349 (1967) has often been repeated.