Case law

Gordon v. Philadelphia County Democratic Executive Committee

2013 Pa. Super. 291 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2013

“In Pennsylvania, a party seeking judicial resolution of a controversy must establish as a threshold matter that he [or she] has standing to maintain the action.... … The [trial] court agrees with [Appel-lees] that Johnson’s statement of interest does not meet the established test for standing....

Palmer v. Tokarek

279 Pa. Super. 458 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1980

Throughout the proceeding below the focus of all parties was clearly P. J.’s best interest and not the ill-will existing between appellants and the natural father. Therefore, independent counsel for P. … It is established that this burden of proof is to be applied to relative and non-relative alike.

Commonwealth v. Gonzalez

2015 Pa. Super. 13 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2015

Gonzalez contends that the audiotape did not qualify as a prior consistent statement. … In addition, the complainant’s diagnosis in Dudley clearly implicated her abilities to perceive and recall critical events.

Grimm v. Universal Medical Services, Inc.

2017 Pa. Super. 53 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2017

Further, “[t]he WPCL does not create an employee’s substantive right to compensation; rather, it only establishes an employee’s right to enforce payment of wages and compensation to which an employee is otherwise entitled … This would clearly undermine the intent of the statute[,] because employees who are unable to retain their wages will not be made whole.

Kearney, J. and L. v. Millers Capital Ins. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2016

In its memorandum in support of preliminary objections, Millers expounded that the cloth maintenance structure could not qualify for coverage as part of Appellants’ building because it was clearly distinct from the “ … As noted above, the test for sustaining preliminary objections is whether it is clear and free from doubt, given all facts pleaded, that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish his or her

Com. v. Sodomsky, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2015

extended Fourth Amendment protections to the digital data stored on a cell phone: - 14 - J-S11045-15 Our holding, of course, is not that the information on a cell phone is immune … “Absent the application of one of a few clearly delineated exceptions, a warrantless search or seizure is presumptively unreasonable.” Id.

Commonwealth v. Radecki

180 A.3d 441 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2018

If the court cannot meet the deadline established by Rule 720, [Appellant] may be prejudiced. … The uncontradicted evidence at trial established that Appellant did not distinguish between patients and employees.

In Re the Adoption of B.G.S.

418 Pa. Super. 588 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1992

It appears the trial court and the majority, in denying the petition to terminate, were effected by the pleas of a young woman to return her child rather than by the evidence which clearly met the test of clear and convincing … The MMPI, in the hands of a properly qualified expert, is a highly effective diagnostic/prognostic tool in combination with other data and information as was the case here.

Commonwealth v. Buford

2014 Pa. Super. 224 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2014

Lieberman was qualified and testified as an expert in forensic pathology does not cure the denial of the appellant’s right to confront Dr. Hunt. Id. at 50. … Clearly, the statements of Jackson and Smith could not be considered as substantive evidence. Appellant’s Brief at 54. We disagree.

In the Interest of: L.C., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2015

The parents argued that the removal of the children from their home was not clearly necessary. … Child had no other special needs or services and was current on her medical immunizations. Id. at 6-7. Ms.

Commonwealth v. Gutierrez

2000 Pa. Super. 115 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2000

. ¶ 3 The facts as established at the suppression hearing are as follows. Gutierrez leased a unit in the Twin Towers Apartments (“Twin Towers”) in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. … We do not believe that authorized access by a limited group of individuals for such a limited purpose qualifies as common access.

Com. v. Rivera, H.

312 A.3d 366 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2024

because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly … SORNA establishes a statewide registry of sexual offenders. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.16(a).

Commonwealth v. Lawrence

2014 Pa. Super. 182 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2014

Thus, a statute will not be found unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution. … “Through [previous] en banc cases, we have established the principle that the term illegal sentence is a term of art that our Courts apply narrowly, to a relatively small class of cases.” Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. McBurrows

2001 Pa. Super. 164 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2001

. ¶ 4 On May 18, 1999, the Appellee filed an omnibus-pre-trial motion seeking among other things, to preclude the testimony of his wife on the basis of spousal immunity or privileged communications pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A … The reasoning is analogous to that which establishes a similar limitation for communications between attorney and client.

In re Search Warrant Application No. 125-4

2004 Pa. Super. 228 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2004

At trial, evidence was admitted that appellant’s blood alcohol content was in excess of 0.25 at the time of the accident, as well as medical records establishing chronic drug and alcohol abuse. … When reviewing the application as a whole, clearly the thrust of the Commonwealth’s warrant is to procure documentary evidence related to over-billing of DPW, essentially business records.

Ely, M. v. Susquehanna Aquacultures, Inc.

130 A.3d 6 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2015

Ely argues that a compromise verdict is inappropriate in a breach of contract case where the record clearly establishes the plaintiff’s damages. … Specifically, Ely introduced evidence purporting to show that Isolano grossly overrepresented the number of fish mortalities at SAI in order to qualify for relief.

In Re NW

859 A.2d 501 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2004

Appellant's brief at 4. [5] ¶ 5 We begin by noting the following well-established legal principles. … preserve and reunify the family need not be made or continue to be made, determine whether the county agency has filed or sought to join a petition to terminate parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified

Commonwealth v. Bricker

882 A.2d 1008 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2005

However, the scope and limits of cross-examination [are] vested in the trial court’s discretion and that discretion will not be reversed unless the trial court has clearly abused its discretion or made an error of law. … PWID less than two grams of crack cocaine does not qualify for a mandatory minimum sentence.

A.Y. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.

2019 Pa. Super. 348 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2019

Wyeth, however, does not render state law failure-to-warn claims immune to preemption in every case. … Such a scientific subject was clearly within the neuroscientist's scope of expertise. Appellants, in contrast, failed to establish that Dr.

Estate of: Simpson, W.Appeal of: Colecchia, D.

305 A.3d 176 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2023

Super. 1994))); Miller, 768 A.2d at 861- 62 (affirming an award of attorneys’ fees where the plaintiff was advised repeatedly that his lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of immunity and that his suit had no legal basis … We believe that the record in the instant matter similarly establishes that Appellant mistakenly entitled his pleading as an Objection to Account, but that he intended to revoke Ms.