Case law

Commonwealth v. Leet

401 Pa. Super. 490 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1991

In some states, the establishment of a police department resulted in an erosion of the office of sheriff. … The main point of the exclusionary rule is to punish the state, which is otherwise immune from liability for an actionable detention.

Commonwealth v. Hubbs (No. 1)

137 Pa. Super. 229 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 1939

oath under which defendant testified — were overruled, and the indictment was quashed solely upon the ground that the oath had been illegally administered, in that *233 it had been administered by “a person not legally qualified … It should be construed strictly and only such modification adopted as the statute clearly and definitely prescribes: Heaney v. Mauch Chunk Boro., 322 Pa. 487, 490 , 185 A. 732 ; Bridgeford v.

Com. v. Holmes, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2017

The Order clearly directs restitution as a condition of probation. Order, 1/21/14 at 2, ¶4. … Thus, the General Assembly clearly chose to qualify the term “child” with the adjective “minor” in one subsection of Section 11.103 of the CVA but not the other.

Commonwealth v. Dessus

214 Pa. Super. 347 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1969

could effectively exercise his right under Rule 203 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure of challenging the array or an individual grand juror, who “. . . may be challenged on the ground that he is not legally qualified … We feel that such judicial discretion has been well exercised here because the circumstances under which the challenged declarations were made fully meet the well established rules of this jurisdiction.

Com. v. Moroz, R.

284 A.3d 227 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2022

CP- 14-CR-1516-2020 beyond a reasonable doubt at an evidentiary hearing in order to establish the DUI at docket no. … We also note that the exception established in Almendarez-Torres remains in place. See Alleyne, supra.

Piso v. Weirton Steel Co.

235 Pa. Super. 517 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1975

No inference from words of general import can establish it.” Perry v. Payne, 217 Pa. 252, 262 , 66 A. 553 (1907). … We believe that the rule stated in the Boiulby-Harmón case is a well-established one.

Com. v. Arroyo, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2025

At this point the Commonwealth is basically asking the witness to qualify himself as an expert and give an expert opinion as to what he observed. … Lay witness opinion testimony is admissible if it is (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue

Farese, L. v. Robinson, J.

222 A.3d 1173 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2019

However, it is clearly stated on page 55 of their appellate brief and also in their Rule 1925(b) concise statement. … Appellants’ counsel objected but never clearly requested a mistrial. N.T., 10/3/2016, at 71, 90.

DeMuth v. Miller

438 Pa. Super. 437 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1995

Not content with having fired a qualified employee solely because he is gay (which decision is not challenged here), plaintiff sought to go further and to employ the courts’ assistance in collecting a money judgment provided … the proposition that judicial action is not immunized from the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment simply because it is taken pursuant to the state's common-law policy.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Ford v. Hendrick

215 Pa. Super. 206 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 1969

Police today are better qualified than in the past, and are certainly more qualified than is the modern bondsman to locate and recapture an accused who has jumped bail. … With the advent of the F.B.I., sophisticated technical advances, training of police and the establishment of professional police forces, the police have a decided advantage over the bondsmen in their ability to locate an

L. D. v. B. D.

291 Pa. Super. 589 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1981

He has since established a new residence at the home of Joseph and Carol Finnigan. Mr. Finnigan is a co-worker whom appellant has known for many years. … LeFevre “appears to be well qualified.” Slip op. at 16. The court summarizes Mr.

Com. v. Leap, J.

222 A.3d 386 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2019

The Commonwealth next presented testimony from Carol Haupt, who was qualified to testify as an expert in the dynamics of sexual violence, victim responses to sexual violence, and the impact of sexual violence on victims … “Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a material fact.”

In Re NB

817 A.2d 530 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2003

[The lower court] was informed on March 23, 2001 that mother and father lived at the same residence and the goal established for the family was to reunify the child with both parents. … Where, as here, appellants' interests are not clearly any more essential than the interests in liberty that defendants in criminal trials hold, we see no reason to refrain from applying the Cohen criteria to the case at bar

Sandino, S. v. Sandino, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2025

The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage. The parties established a middle class standard of living. 10. … He argues that “[t]his is clearly a case where the deferred distribution must be used, as Husband’s pensions and other retirement assets far exceed the remainder of the marital estate.” Id. at 22.

Roverano, W. v. John Crane, Inc.

177 A.3d 892 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2017

Clearly that would have violated the automatic stay. … These causation-based arguments clearly suggest bases for apportionment apart from fault.

Commonwealth v. Lewis

2012 Pa. Super. 17 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2012

ESTABLISHED CASE LAW? … The issue before the Valle-Velez Court was whether spouses who were estranged, separated, and had filed for divorce still qualified for the privilege under Section 5913.

Toogood v. Rogal

2000 Pa. Super. 344 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2000

This argument equates a valid defense of immunity with the defense of release and satisfaction and evidences a profound misapprehension of the nature of the vicarious liability of a principal for the tortious acts of his … The verdict must be clearly and immoderately excessive to justify the granting of a new trial.

Cohn v. McGurk

330 Pa. Super. 333 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1984

If he shall fail to qualify or cease to act, I appoint ROSEMARY McGURK as successor Trustee. … Since this separate agreement is supported by consideration it is legally enforceable and evidence to establish this agreement is clearly admissible. (emphasis added). Kravitz, supra, 189 A.2d at 312 .

Com. of Pa. v. Montgomery

181 A.3d 359 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2018

This statement did not have any qualifiers regarding the previous petition being held in abeyance. … It clearly is. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vii); see Commonwealth v. Ciccone, 152 A.3d 1004, 1006 (Pa. Super. 2016) (en banc), appeal denied, 169 A.3d 564 (Pa. 2017).

Stange, T. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals

179 A.3d 45 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2018

Whether or not an expert witness is qualified to testify is usually a matter left -9- J. A10042/17 to the sound discretion of the trial court. … Wisconsin clearly has an important interest in protecting its citizens, such as Stange, against tortious conduct; - 35 - J.