Case law

Commonwealth v. Kelly

2010 Pa. Super. 165 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2010

We note that we will make him eligible for Outmate if he does find a job which qualifies him. Id. at 7-8. … The factual background of this case clearly shows this is not a waiver of counsel case.

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

Lexington Insurance v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance

2013 Pa. Super. 286 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2013

However, with respect to any person or organization qualifying as an [additional insured], this policy will apply before any “Other Insurance” that is excess insurance available to the insured so long as: 1. insurance with … Clearly, one difference is the scope of the duty. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. See Am. and Foreign Ins. Co. v.

Allegheny Health Network v. Brader, E.

2025 Pa. Super. 269 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2025

A right to a remedy for discrimination in employment is established by the PHRA, 43 P.S. § 953, where it is provided, “The opportunity for an individual to obtain employment for which he is qualified … without … Super.] 1997)[ (en banc)].[19] Here, we have a statute that clearly prohibits discharge—the afore-discussed Whistleblower Law.2 This law represents our Commonwealth’s public policy, as clearly enunciated

Com. v. Chimenti, S.

218 A.3d 963 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2019

Rendell was even to assure [Appellant] that immunity would be granted to any witnesses who would testify at any future proceedings. … The District Attorney’s Office then fought [Appellant’s] efforts at relief even rescinding the immunity offers.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Lehman

1999 Pa. Super. 275 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1999

The Lehmans also signed a release that immunized Warner from any further liability arising from the accident. … The Lehmans filed their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment stating that “the affidavits, answers to interrogatories, pleadings and depositions clearly indicate that there were no factual disputes ...

Commonwealth v. Page

2013 Pa. Super. 2 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2013

The appellant bears the burden of establishing such prejudice. Commonwealth v. Mollett, 5 A.3d 291, 305 (Pa.Super.2010) (internal quotation omitted). … Carrasco was not consulted on this particular autopsy, she was still qualified to offer her opinion; then, it was left to the jury to determine how much weight to assign the testimony.

Commonwealth v. Rominger

199 A.3d 964 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 2018

We further note that the Treatment Court Application Instructions state the criteria used to identify those who may qualify for the court, which include that the offender "has a verifiable history of substance abuse" and … Rominger has provided no evidence to establish "bias, prejudice, or unfairness necessitating recusal."

Commonwealth v. Ovalles

2016 Pa. Super. 166 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2016

He was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology, which includes an expertise in bullet trajectory within the human body. (NT. at 161-165). Dr. … Moreover, clearly, [Appellant] had an opportunity to cross[-]examine the witness during the course of the Commonwealth having called Mr. Rodriguez. N.T., 8/11/15, at 159-160.

BouSamra, G. v. Excela Health

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2021

BouSamra in his complaint because a factual record ha[d] not yet been established by the trial court. … Therefore, the privilege is clearly held by Excela because it is a professional health care provider.

In re W.H.

2011 Pa. Super. 119 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2011

Mother also asserts that the juvenile court ignored due process protections our Supreme Court established in In re F.C. … As the order clearly permits Dr.

Commonwealth v. Carter

219 Pa. Super. 280 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1971

A defendant does not have the right to select a particular juror but only to reject one who is not qualified or who is prejudiced or who he feels he would prefer not to have on the jury and then for the latter, only to the … The argument concerning identification is clearly one of credibility and the weight to be given to such evidence is a jury question. It was well handled by the court below in his charge.

Commonwealth v. Hudson

2003 Pa. Super. 104 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2003

The standards for recusal are well established. … Dissatisfaction with the judge’s rejection of his plea agreement certainly does not qualify.

Com. v. Evans, K.

2026 Pa. Super. 96 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2026

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. … Jur. 2d False Imprisonment § 156 (false imprisonment statutes that define qualifying restraints as those interfering substantially with liberty require a ‘“real’ or ‘material’ interference with the liberty of another, as

Commonwealth v. McFadden

2017 Pa. Super. 36 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 2017

She may indeed have had a “relationship” to the school system by virtue of her work as a school crossing guard, but that did not establish that she had an employment relationship with it. … Cmwlth. 1985), appeal denied, 538 A.2d 880 (Pa. 1987).14 Appellant argues that several Pennsylvania statutes suggest that school crossing guards do not qualify as law enforcement officers.

Eighth North-Val, Inc. v. William L. Parkinson, D.D.S., P.C., Pension Trust

2001 Pa. Super. 101 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2001

Clearly, the purpose of the proffered evidence was to attack Poci-us’ character for truthfulness. Its inadmissibility is therefore governed by Pa. R.E. 608(b). … When interpreting contract language, specific provisions ordinarily will be regarded as qualifying the meaning of broad general terms in relation to a particular subject. In re Alloy Manufacturing Co.

Com. v. Griggs, E.

2025 Pa. Super. 285 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2025

It contends that our legislature’s chosen language indicates an intent to qualify only the most culpable for felony grading: The base offense of criminal mischief can be committed with several different states … The legislature clearly intended a combination of the actor’s mens rea and the amount of loss actually caused to govern the seriousness of the offense.

Tindall v. Friedman

2009 Pa. Super. 50 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2009

Schweitzer’s personal assets were immune, Dr. … Friedman argues that the evidence established that his written instructions about the purpose for Mr.

Charlton, A. v. Troy, S.

236 A.3d 22 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2020

That error was compounded when counsel for the Charltons was allowed to read in excerpts from the text, which were clearly hearsay, as substantive evidence. … The defense repeatedly objected to this practice, but the trial court permitted this clearly prohibited use of a publication as substantive evidence.

Commonwealth v. Trenge

305 Pa. Super. 386 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1982

Our Court, discussing the question of probable cause to search the trunk, first held that the marijuana leaves and seeds alone established probable cause to search the automobile. … Clearly, this test does not require that a person be verbally advised that he is under arrest before the arrest may be said to occur.