Case law

Reed, S. v. Reed, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2025

Regarding immunizations, Commonwealth law expressly recognizes the right of a parent to decline immunizations, see 28 Pa. … Without this showing, Paternal Grandfather simply did not meet his burden to establish standing to seek legal custody.

Commonwealth v. Shull

148 A.3d 820 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2016

Shull misconstrues Ramos, however, as the decision clearly confirmed that the burden of proof in a decertification hearing rests with the juvenile. … the evidence to establish the fact in issue.”

Embrey v. Borough of West Mifflin

257 Pa. Super. 168 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1978

Theodore Rodman, a well qualified medical expert in the field of chest injuries. … Despite this testimony which clearly established a factual basis for apportionment of responsibility, the hospital contends that as a matter of law the traffic accident defendants were also jointly responsible for Mr.

Wellner v. Wellner

699 A.2d 1278 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1997

For the support decision, Wife only needed to establish, inter alia, that she was financially dependent and the parties were separated with adequate legal cause at the time of her request for support. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4321; … Since, in the context of equitable distribution, the court actually determined that the parties did not separate, i.e., live separate and apart, until August of 1992, the parties arguably did not qualify for a § 3301(d) divorce

Commonwealth v. Hill

210 A.3d 1104 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2019

Lieutenant Echevarria was qualified as an expert in the field of jargon and code or language interpretation. … “Section 5111 thus presents explicit language which clearly defines unlawful activity as any felony or first degree misdemeanor, and targets the dealing in proceeds derived from any of those various illegal

In the Int. of: La.-Ra. W., Appeal of: C.W.

266 A.3d 1071 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2021

All parties agreed that he was qualified as a geneticist. N.T. Dependency/Abuse Hearing, 9/23/20, at 203, 207. However, DHS claimed that the doctor was not an expert in pediatric radiology. 18 Frye v. … See id. at 1132 (Court concurring with DHS’ position that “the mere fact of publication is not enough to establish general acceptance, especially where the medical establishment’s reaction to those publications has been

Clark, M. v. McDermott, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2015

To establish fraud, the plaintiff must show: (1) a representation; (2) which is material to the transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with -6- J-A10034-15 knowledge of its falsity … Borczon, 881 A.2d 1, 5-6 (Pa.Super.2005) (patient waived, for purposes of appeal, her challenge to physician's claim to qualified immunity under the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA) by failing to raise that argument

Commonwealth v. Atwood

411 Pa. Super. 137 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1991

More specifically, in order to establish the legitimate reasons for Rev. … In support of its contention that the witnesses were not qualified to testify on such matters as the average and reasonable expenses in this industry the trial court cites Commonwealth v.

Willinger v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center

241 Pa. Super. 456 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1976

Defendant’s third party complaint clearly did not allege vicarious liability based on an agency relationship: “7. Additional defendant, Josephine L.C. … “(f) Departed from the operating room at a time when plaintiff’s decedent was unconscious, thus rendering plaintiff’s decedent in an unconscious state without the care of a duly qualified physician.

Com. v. Solomon, P.

2021 Pa. Super. 43 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2021

Armstrong was qualified to offer expert testimony as to the value of the coins at issue. See Appellant’s substituted reply brief at 4-5. … He has established that our legislature clearly knew how to provide a limited definition of the value of stolen property, and it could have specified its applicability to § 1106 if it wanted to constrain a sentencing court

In Re: Vencil, N. Appeal of: Vencil, N.

2015 Pa. Super. 157 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2015

For a proceeding to qualify as a hearing, there must be a record and the opportunity … to make argument and at least offer supplemental evidence.” … Sometimes, however, situations arise that require this Court to address the practical ramifications of the application of the law as written and establish a clearly defined uniform rule

Commonwealth v. Johnson

2001 Pa. Super. 328 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2001

Although Officer Ghafoor’s first comment was that Appellant stated “he didn’t have an address,” Officer Ghafoor immediately qualified this comment by stating that Appellant would not give an address. … Clearly, if questioning that is deemed an impermissible inference on Appellant’s post-arrest silence cannot be utilized to impeach the Appellant’s own testimony, it cannot be used to impeach the testimony of a defense witness

Beaver Township School District v. Burdick

51 Pa. Super. 496 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 1912

qualification we have suggested, namely, that the effect of nonuser depends on the nature of the conveyance, its limitation of the estate or interest conveyed, and its limitation of the use intended to be protected by it, is clearly … As was said of the words under construction in the case cited, so it may be said of these words, they accompany the creation of the estate, qualify it, and prescribe the bounds beyond which it shall not endure; when this

Commonwealth v. Joseph

848 A.2d 934 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2004

He qualified that since this was his first time, he was nervous about it and would be just happy “watching and playing.” Later emails clarified [appellant’s] desire for the older girl and not the 9-year-old. … Clearly, the trial court hoped that deportation might occur earlier if appellant was not subject to a prison sentence.

Commonwealth v. Demark

2002 Pa. Super. 170 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2002

The Commonwealth may also establish the laboratory’s approval and adequacy of methods, procedures, equipment, and personnel through testimony of witnesses. … In its brief, the Commonwealth does not clearly indicate which blood sample it is arguing should be admissible under Shaw .

Commonwealth v. Jennings

405 Pa. Super. 590 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1991

[T]his court has consistently held that the failure to allow a criminal defendant to use a prosecution witness’ prior criminal record to establish a possible motive for giving unfavorable testimony against him violates that … Given the procedural posture of this case, even had we concluded that Costello was controlling, appellant would not have qualified for discharge; however, the prevalence of the actuality rule is conclusive.

Commonwealth v. Gallman

2003 Pa. Super. 474 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2003

Gallman’s first pro se allegation of ineffectiveness is clearly without merit and does not warrant remand. … Lawrence clearly dictates that we avoid review of the merits of Gallman’s pro se ineffectiveness claims.

Lance v. Wyeth

2010 Pa. Super. 137 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 2010

However, to immunize sellers of products deemed unavoidably unsafe pursuant to comment k from negligence claims would remove needed incentive for safe design. Id. (citations omitted). ¶ 19 Likewise, in Artiglio v. … “Until and unless our Supreme Court alters its approach to strict liability, we will continue to adhere to established principles.” Bugosh v.

In Re: V.C.-L., Appeal of: V.C.-L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2023

The Legislature has determined that the likelihood clearly established ____________________________________________ 8We observe that in G.R., notwithstanding the trial court’s finding of child abuse against the parents … Super. 2021), appeal denied, 270 A.3d 1098 (Pa. 2022) (emphasizing that the “likelihood clearly established abuse has occurred, other than at the hands of the custodian, is so small that prima facie evidence the custodian

Commonwealth v. Leveille

289 Pa. Super. 248 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 1981

Appellant contends additionally that the Commonwealth failed to establish a proper foundation for admission of the tape. In Commonwealth v. … Moreover, the identity of the voices on the tape was established by Trooper Fernstrom and by the tape itself. Accordingly, appellant’s claim is without merit. 4 .