Case law

Moser, B. v. Renninger, R.

2015 Pa. Super. 105 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2015

In her brief, Executrix argues that grounds have not been established and the Divorce Code does not allow for a claim of APL to be established posthumously. … If the husband dies during the pendency of the action, although no order for maintenance could be then prospective, the wife clearly has the right to recover against the husband’s estate

Quatrochi v. Gaiters

251 Pa. Super. 115 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1977

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reiterated the traditional rule that “. in the absence of fraud, the return of service of a sheriff, which is full and complete on its face, is conclusive and immune from attack by … The record does not clearly establish the date that appellee filed his petition to open the default judgment.

Commonwealth v. Bujanowski

418 Pa. Super. 163 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1992

The prior inconsistent statement of Ronald Bujanowski, Jr. in the instant case does not qualify as admissible substantive evidence under Commonwealth v. … This procedure has none of the safe guards referred to and relied upon by the Supreme Court in Brady and clearly is not covered by that court's holding therein.

In the Interest of: A.W. Appeal of: R.W.

2017 Pa. Super. 97 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2017

“These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 978 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). … Therefore, based on the totality of the evidence, we conclude that CYF failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that a change in goal would be in Child’s best interest.

Commonwealth v. Yanoff

456 Pa. Super. 222 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 1997

The duty to retreat clearly applied, given the facts of this case. … The fact that Appellant shot the victim in the back clearly undermines his claim of self-defense.

Commonwealth v. Geiger

2008 Pa. Super. 23 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2008

Only the attorneys for the defense and for the Commonwealth, persons necessary to operate the equipment, a qualified shorthand reporter and any person whose presence would contribute to the welfare and well-being of the child … Such a constitutional right could not be more clearly enunciated. Accordingly, we hold that §§ 5984 and 5985 on their face are repugnant to our state constitution and therefore are invalid.

Com. v. Everett, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2016

Nair that she knew that Kody wanted to re-establish a relationship with Tory. Id. at 1.112. According to Mr. … As we noted supra, pages 15-16, when Defendant received these messages, she clearly believed she was speaking to one person. This is made evident by the fact that she clearly attributed to Mr.

In re Adoption of W.C.K.

748 A.2d 223 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2000

Clearly, we considered the fact that Ms. … The DeCostros presented no evidence to establish Mother’s intent to place W.C.K. with them.

Daniel v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

2011 Pa. Super. 23 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2011

Whether or not an expert witness is qualified to testify is usually a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Jacobs v. … N.T., 1/12/07 (MS), at 97, 107 (“The evidence clearly points to the fact that her intake of combination hormone therapy caused her breast cancer in this particular case.”).

Menites, Inc. v. WHTM ABC 27 News

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2017

Under this privilege, media defendants have qualified immunity from defamation liability when they report on official governmental proceedings. Id. … “However, this qualified immunity is forfeited if the publisher steps out of the scope of the privilege or abuses the ‘occasion.’

Commonwealth v. Walls

2016 Pa. Super. 156 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2016

Such a construction would negate the need for a specific showing of harm, which is clearly contrary to language contemplated by the legislature. . . . … This rationale refutes the Commonwealth’s claim that ADA Brown’s fear and reassessment of her prosecutorial career qualify as harm under section 4953.1.

Commonwealth v. Brown

2013 Pa. Super. 194 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2013

“The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. … The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence regarding expert testimony state: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: *

Com. v. Hudson, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2025

Counsel argued: [Defense Counsel]: As to the statute that the Commonwealth has presented, that statute requires these results are being done by a qualified person on qualified equipment. … To establish that element, the Commonwealth introduced a lab report, and offered testimony from the custodian of records for Hanover Hospital to establish that [the a]ppellant’s BAC result constituted a business

Com. v. Ohm, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2017

With the agreement of the District Attorney’s Office that the sentence in 3791-2015 that was entered on January 21, 2016 should be vacated, and it appearing that [Appellant] qualifies under the requirements … Drug overdose response immunity (a) A person may not be charged and shall be immune from prosecution for [35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32)] and for a violation of probation or parole if the person can establish

Commonwealth v. Pollock

414 Pa. Super. 66 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1992

In the instant case, the operator was clearly in violation of a specific provision (the height limitation) of the permit which was in his possession. … the driver’s license, or to secure other such information as the officer may reasonably believe necessary to enforce the provisions of this title. . 75 Pa.C.S. § 4981(a) provides, in pertinent part: Any police officer or qualified

Commonwealth v. Brown

2008 Pa. Super. 156 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2008

Notwithstanding the primacy of the plain meaning doctrine as best representative of legislative intent, the rules of construction offer several important qualifying precepts. … However, when establishing priorities, the court shall order payment in the following order: (A) The victim. (B) The Crime Victim's Compensation Board.

Com. v. Lucas, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2026

Id. at 1154, 1161 (stating that, by use of the words “has been held” and “that court” in Section 9545(b)(1)(iii), “the legislature clearly intended that the right was already recognized [as applicable with … To the extent that Appellant argues that Overby or Blakeney constitute newly discovered facts, it is well-established that judicial opinions do not qualify as newly discovered fact. See Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Nestor, T.

314 A.3d 863 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2024

In our opinion, the facts and circumstances of the case before us clearly fall within the ‘expert testimony necessary’ classification.” Id. at 538. … The Gause Court’s analysis signals a belief that the General Assembly presumably did not intend for, inter alia, caffeine, which is a stimulant, to qualify as a drug for purposes of the DUI statute.

Com. v. Peralta, J.

2024 Pa. Super. 20 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2024

--The following shall apply: (1) An individual whose license has been suspended under section 1547(b) shall be eligible to apply for and, if otherwise qualified, be issued an ignition interlock … If the General Assembly intended that the notice provision was irrelevant to the motorist’s duty to comply, it could have clearly stated that point.

Com. v. Walsh, E.

2026 Pa. Super. 47 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2026

However, we note that he was not qualified to testify as an expert witness or even as an officer with specialized training or experience with what our legislature has defined (and what is referenced infra) … The standard clearly does not require that the Commonwealth prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at this stage.