Case law

P.C.S. v. J.E.B.

442 Pa. Super. 388 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1995

We believe that a vasectomy, where the operation’s success is confirmed by a sperm count analysis, qualifies as clear and convincing evidence of an inability to procreate. … Furthermore, rather than exhibiting an attitude of acceptance and acknowledgment, Husband clearly found the subject child objectionable.

Commonwealth v. Thill

417 Pa. Super. 485 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1992

violation of this title arising out of the same action, the amount of alcohol or controlled substance in the defendant’s blood, as shown by chemical testing of the person’s breath, blood or urine, which tests were conducted by qualified … On this issue, the suppression court held that, while “evidence of bad faith, collusion or [the] absence of certification would clearly implicate the defendant’s constitutional rights[,] ... the mere violation of a regulatory

In Re Raymond G. Perelman Charitable Remainder Unitrust

113 A.3d 296 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2015

and continues to qualify under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. … Based upon our review, Jeffrey’s averments clearly and with ample detail set forth bases for concern regarding the administration of the Trusts while Ruth was still a director.

In Re JC

5 A.3d 284 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2010

Did the trial court err in finding that it was clearly necessary to commit the child to the Department of Human Services? Grandmother's brief at 4. … As a relative, Grandmother could qualify for custody of child under section 6351(a)(2)(i), but based upon the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Grandmother was not qualified to receive

Commonwealth v. Gross

307 Pa. Super. 353 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1982

Other testimony established that appellant had taken out a fire insurance policy on the contents of the trailer for the first time on March 23, 1979. … The record in this case clearly establishes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the expert to state his opinion. See: Commonwealth v.

Scranton Steam Heat Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

194 Pa. Super. 143 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1960

The commission so found and the evidence clearly supports such finding. … These cost studies were prepared by a qualified engineering firm and its detailed inventory was not materially questioned.

Nitardy, J. & L. v. Chabot, M.

195 A.3d 941 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2018

As to the limited exception noted above, there is no dispute that [the Tenants] are responsible for the counter top damage, and this item clearly does not qualify as ordinary wear and tear. … Regarding the Updated List of Damages, the trial court shall determine if Landlord established the damage and if the amount listed is reasonable.

Tillery, S. v. The Children's Hospital of Phila.

2017 Pa. Super. 50 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2017

They argue that “the evidence established that there are clearly two schools of thought when it comes to treatment of suspected bacterial meningitis with steroids.” (Id. at 34). We disagree. … Poe was not qualified to provide standard of care opinions against [Appellants] under the MCARE Act.”4 (Id. at 44). We disagree.

In the Interest of: M.R., a Minor

2021 Pa. Super. 30 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2021

Miller’s testimony clearly meets the … requirements under [Rule] 702. Dr. … We agree that DHS presented clear and convincing evidence to establish child abuse by Parents.

Com. v. Wenzel, R.

2021 Pa. Super. 44 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2021

of Evidence provide: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly … This issue was raised before the trial court immediately after the trial court refused to qualify Dr. Burkett as an expert. Id. at 189.

Reading Blue Mtn. & Northern R/R Co. v. Mount, T.

2025 Pa. Super. 225 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2025

It is well-established that, “the right[-]of[-]way of a railroad company, whatever its established width, as soon as acquired is impressed with a public use; it constitutes a public highway. … Bercek’s testimony demonstrates that exact measurements pertaining to the northern and southern boundary lines of Lot 47 were clearly discernable and could have been represented on the survey map with little effort.

In the Interest of: A.W., JR., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2018

Court orders for the child to receive all vaccinations forthwith”, without a proper factual and legal basis being established at the hearing of this matter . . . ? 2. … The record establishes that S.W., A.W., Jr., J.W., and M.W. are at risk without the additional medical monitoring and treatment that Parents oppose. Parents will not consent to the administration of vaccinations.

Knights of Pythias Benevolent Ass'n of Coal Centre v. Leadbeter

2 Pa. Super. 461 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1896

trial were not correctly reported, nor to prove that'she did not understand the questions, nor to prove that she was not given full opportunity to answer or to explain, nor to prove that there was anything in the context to qualify … Furthermore, in affirming the plaintiff’s third and eighth points, especially the latter, the jury were clearly and accurately instructed that the use of the water by the plaintiff and its predecessors in title when they

Commonwealth v. Lyons

2003 Pa. Super. 360 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2003

Appellant asserts the Commonwealth knew he had intended to call these witnesses to establish an alibi defense. … The standard for evaluating the weight of the evidence is well established: [O]ur scope of review for such a claim is very narrow.

Commonwealth v. Swallow

8 Pa. Super. 539 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 1898

To give .immunity to such a publication, on the ground of privilege, there must be neither malice nor negligence in making it. … The question thus raised is to be determined by the application of established principles of pleading.

Com. v. Williams, R.

241 A.3d 1094 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2020

As these cases illustrate, the difficulty that frequently arises in e-mail and text message cases is establishing authorship. … [Officer] Ananea was qualified as a crime scene processing expert, and not an expert in forensic science or blood pattern evidence.

Commonwealth v. O'Kicki

408 Pa. Super. 518 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 1991

Moreover, in delaying his ruling until after the voir dire, the trial court was acting under established authority. … Viewing the evidence from this long established standard of review, see, e.g., Commonwealth v.

Gentzler v. Atlee

443 Pa. Super. 128 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1995

The answer is clearly that it was not Dr. Gentzler who performed the surgery. … “[W]hat constitutes probable cause and whether it exists under an *136 admitted or clearly established set of facts are questions of law for the court to determine.” Dietrich Ind., Inc. v.

Commonwealth v. Woodruff

2016 Pa. Super. 47 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2016

Clearly, Appellant’s lifetime, quarterly, in-person reporting requirements are more onerous than those involved in Perez. … Instantly, Appellant only makes a qualified or partial concession.

Wilson v. McKee and McDanel

110 Pa. Super. 544 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1933

We think it is clearly established by the evidence that Karnavas was only willing to sign the second agreement on the basis that the plaintiff and MeDanel had represented to him that there was a $35,000 first mortgage on … representations the latter had never authorized and was unwilling to- adopt; that the plaintiff never produced a purchaser who was willing to buy the building on the terms set out in agreement No. 2, except as modified or qualified