Case law

Fredericks v. Castora

241 Pa. Super. 211 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1976

Other jurisdictions have confronted the problem of varying degrees of care and sought to control the ceaseless variation of the concept of negligence by establishing a single standard: “Care does not increase or diminish … In Whitner the trial court failed to qualify the “but for” mode of expression, used to explain proximate cause, with the requirement that the circumstances under consideration must be closely connected to the injury in the

Poteat, A. v. Asteak, G.

2025 Pa. Super. 277 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2025

Although not supplying concrete precedent, the non- precedential decisions clearly show a trend of incorporating Bruno and rejecting Gorski's reasoning, and trial courts have cited … The request for immunity was rejected, but the Court set forth different sets of elements for negligent malpractice in the context of criminal and civil law.

Com. v. Jones, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2015

The evidence pertaining to co-defendant Williams’ particular role in the robbery was clearly capable of separation by the jury and easily compartmentalized. … Appellant failed to establish the witness was known or should have been known to counsel.

Nemoto v. Nemoto

423 Pa. Super. 269 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1993

The trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which was dated December 30,1991 and filed January 2, 1992. … The record clearly indicates that this situation is unlikely to change in the future.

Com. v. Sanders, K.

2020 Pa. Super. 20 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2020

Sanders conceded that the victim was clearly visible during that 45 seconds in recordings taken by the on-board cameras, but said she did not see him on the day in question until he was directly in front of her bus. … [Sanders] was a professional driver and grossly deviated from the standard of conduct that a similarly qualified driver would have exercised.

Commonwealth v. McMullen

721 A.2d 370 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1998

As a result, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the evidence did not establish the requisite corpus delicti or body of the crime. … I believe this case clearly presents a situation in which the Commonwealth is violating the principles of the double jeopardy clause by successive attempts at conviction.

Woods Schools Appeal

195 Pa. Super. 531 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1961

A Child Study and Treatment and Research Institute has been established and is being in part maintained out of the surplus revenues of the school. … In the Hill School case the Court said that while an educational institution to qualify for exemption must be free of any motive of private profit, it may receive some payment for its services.

Havens v. Tonner

243 Pa. Super. 371 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1976

The liability of appellant and the nonliability of his co-defendants have been established by jury verdict and are not at issue on appeal. … It may be that inflation will become so much an established pattern of our economy that it should be recognized in estimating loss of future earnings.

Stein, M. v. Magarity, G.

2014 Pa. Super. 239 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2014

in mishandling a plea[,] but also refuted [the trial court’s] errant assumption that any reduced sentence was speculation; where the summary judgment Order[,] by its own terms[,] was expressly qualified … … [A] later motion should not be entertained or granted when a motion of the same kind has previously been denied, unless intervening changes in the facts or the law clearly warrant a new look at

Alexander v. Armstrong

415 Pa. Super. 263 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 1992

The fact that the Internal Revenue Code excludes from gross income qualified military benefits, of which military allowances are a part, see 26 U.S.C.A. § 134 , is of little weight in the determination of whether BAQ and … Specifically, appellant argues that if the lower court was presented with the situation of a serviceman living on base, with all other variables the same as appellant’s, the lower court clearly would not have considered the

Commonwealth v. Romeri

314 Pa. Super. 279 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1983

The record, clearly establishes that appellant was aware that he was not told that he was under arrest, and that after locating Mrs. … Appellant proceeds to contend that it was error to permit voir dire on the death penalty, since the result of such an empaneling was a “death-qualified” jury.

Com. v. Bonnett, P.

2020 Pa. Super. 231 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2020

I think, clearly, you’re arguing a mistake in application of the science, which is clearly cross examination at trial. ____________________________________________ http:// www .nfpa. org /news-and-research/publications … It is well-established that any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived for appellate review. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998).

Commonwealth v. Hornberger

2013 Pa. Super. 231 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2013

The trial court has broad discretion in phrasing its instructions, and may choose its own wording so long as the law is clearly, adequately, and accurately presented to the jury for its consideration. Commonwealth v. … In granting Hornberger’s new trial motion, the trial court correctly found that Hornberger raised a valid question for the jury as to whether Bingaman’s apartment qualified as a temporary lodging, and hence a dwelling, for

In re G.P.-R.

2004 Pa. Super. 205 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2004

670, 677 (Pa.Super.2001), appeal denied, 568 Pa. 618 , 792 A.2d 1254 (2001). ¶ 8 The trial court’s rendition of the facts, which we find are supported by the evidence presented, coupled with its credibility determinations clearly … In fact, Father admits that he was waiting until he was on parole to try to “re-establish” a relationship.

Commonwealth v. Urbanski

426 Pa. Super. 505 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1993

Clearly, Kohl invalidated only § 1547(a)(2) and left subsection (a)(1) intact. … The evidence clearly was sufficient to establish malice. Appellant's final allegation of error is framed as an ineffectiveness challenge.

Valentino v. Philadelphia Triathlon, LLC

2016 Pa. Super. 248 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2016

Our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where. it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. … Summary judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In the Interest of LaRue

244 Pa. Super. 218 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1976

So, to my thought under that circumstance alone, no matter how well qualified Ms. … Was the signing of the agreement clearly necessary in order to protect the child from living in continuing conditions amounting to deprivation?

Com. v. Williams, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2019

Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the PCRA court’s conclusion that Williams established his petition qualified for the newly discovered facts exception to the PCRA’s time limitation. … The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania offered the following clarification: To qualify for an exception to the PCRA's time limitations under subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner need only establish that the

McKenzie v. Cost Bros., Inc.

260 Pa. Super. 295 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 1978

The major cases relied upon by appellant clearly show a deviation from accepted practices in the construction industry and are distinguishable on that point. For example, in Stringer v. … Dickerson was also the “statutory employer” under the Workman’s Compensation Act which makes it immune from suit. 77 P.S. § 1 et seq. 5 .

Leahy v. McClain

732 A.2d 619 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1999

This passage from Lockhart clearly indicates that the sudden emergency doctrine is not intended to be used as an affirmative defense. … Although conflicting testimony was presented with regards as to how far away the parties were before they saw each other, undisputed testimony established that the visibility was limited.