Case law

Commonwealth v. Katonka

2011 Pa. Super. 223 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2011

The Superior Court attempted to apply a new standard whereby participation in a plea colloquy results in a defendant’s waiver of the rights established by this Court pursuant to Forbes . … On appeal, this Court affirmed: Dispositive in both Forbes and Randolph was that the defendant made a clear assertion of innocence prior to sentencing, such that it qualified as a fair and just reason permitting the pre-sen-tence

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.

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.

Commonwealth v. Haynes

125 A.3d 800 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2015

Accordingly, we look to our well-established rules of statutory construction. … After review, the trial court clearly did not disregard the sentencing guidelines.

Lockley v. CSX Transportation Inc.

2010 Pa. Super. 167 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2010

Whether the trial court erred in striking a competent, qualified juror after the jury had already been impaneled and sworn[?] *388 3. … The trial court’s instruction clearly and accurately conveyed the applicable law to the jury.

Kessler v. Broder

851 A.2d 944 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2004

With this standard in mind we begin our review. ¶ 8 A petitioner seeking a preliminary injunction must establish every one of the following prerequisites; if the petitioner fails to establish any one of them, there is no … Shaer is a qualified and competent radiologist, N.T., 1/3/03, at 16; and, in terms of availability, an important criterion to Dr.

Com. v. Caulk, R.

2019 Pa. Super. 303 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2019

But his death must not and cannot be a reason for immunity from all prosecution in this case. … During closing argument, the prosecutor observed that even though Reaves was dead and was unable to testify, the Commonwealth established through circumstantial evidence that Appellant sold drugs to Reaves.

Higbee Corporation v. Kennedy

286 Pa. Super. 101 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1981

Thus, it is evident that mere nonuse of the property as a road does not establish that the condition has been broken. … “It must not be forgotten that such a fee is nevertheless a fee simple, because it may last forever in a man and his heirs, the duration depending upon the concurrence of collateral circumstances which qualify and debase

Commonwealth v. Fennell

180 A.3d 778 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2018

. – Every citizen of this Commonwealth who is of the required minimum age of voting for State or local officials and who resides in the county shall be qualified to serve as a juror … Clearly, then, they should have been investigative targets for any supplemental information that Attorney O’Keefe was unable to produce.

Com. v. McGlinden, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2015

witness or a certification establishing the first three elements of the exception. … The Commonwealth counters that Appellant waived this hearsay objection by not objecting to the lack of a custodian or other qualified witness. We disagree.

Com. v. Sanchez, B.

2024 Pa. Super. 245 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2024

-8- J-A19032-24 Moreover, it defies logic to suggest that the fact that medical marijuana is now legal for qualified individuals in this Commonwealth somehow renders our … Also, the totality of the circumstances test does not limit our inquiry to an examination of only those facts that clearly indicate criminal conduct.

Commonwealth v. P.L.S.

2006 Pa. Super. 20 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2006

. ¶ 3 At trial, the following was established. … established that it had a coercive effect.

Chilutti, S. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

300 A.3d 430 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2023

Generally, courts make the “enforcement” determination when the agreement clearly and plainly states that the party is waiving, inter alia, their right to a jury trial. … The failure to clearly denote the hyperlinks here fails our conspicuousness test. Id. at 856-67 (citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Harris

2005 Pa. Super. 388 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2005

In addition, Officer Washington observed the vehicle’s registration had clearly expired. … Trial Court Opinion filed 12/2/04, at 6-7. 6 ¶ 30 Clearly, the aforementioned robbery convictions qualify as crimes of violence.

Com. v. McGinnis, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2021

Chambers’ false memory testimony was manifestly unreasonable, partial, prejudiced, biased, ill-willed, or clearly erroneous. See Saez, 225 A.3d at 177–78. … wouldn’t have directly spoken to whether [J.M.] was untrustworthy, or even unreliable[,]” he then argues, “even if [the] false memories testimony would’ve directly commented on [J.M.]’s credibility, common sense and clearly-established

P.C.S. v. J.E.B.

442 Pa. Super. 388 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1995

We believe that a vasectomy, where the operation’s success is confirmed by a sperm count analysis, qualifies as clear and convincing evidence of an inability to procreate. … Furthermore, rather than exhibiting an attitude of acceptance and acknowledgment, Husband clearly found the subject child objectionable.

Heffner v. Allstate Insurance

265 Pa. Super. 181 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1979

Certainly, if the legislature intended to establish benefits for two different classes of individuals, “victims” and “deceased victims” it did not do so in very lucid fashion. Indeed, Mrs. … Under Allstate’s analysis no decedent’s estate could ever prove this fact because the estate would never qualify for work loss benefits in the first place.

Com. v. Devine, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2021

Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. … Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that “notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice

Com. v. Roche, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2020

Given the latitude afforded to the trial court in qualifying a witness as an expert, we find that the at-issue witness was amply qualified under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702. … Ross, an expert who also testified at trial, but who was specifically qualified to discuss forensic pathology, to establish that, as distinct from Trooper Shubzda’s conclusions, Dr.

T.J.B. v. E.C.

652 A.2d 936 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1995

Specifically, appellee demanded that an “open adoption” with scheduled visitations be established. Moreover, appellee informed appellants and Mr. … Although appellants’ in loco parentis status qualifies them to petition to terminate the parental rights of appellee and E.C. to M.J.C., this status does not also necessarily provide them standing to seek custody of M.J.C