Case law

Commonwealth v. Lasko

2011 Pa. Super. 26 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2011

I’m not sure if he even still qualifies for court-appointed counsel. Some other things I explained the plea offer was possession of small amount of marijuana and paraphernalia. … The record clearly reflects that Appellant did not wish to proceed pro se. Rather, he wanted new counsel appointed who would pursue a suppression motion and try the case.

Hartman v. Baker

2000 Pa. Super. 140 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 2000

The 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 by the terms … Due to the absence of a defined accounting system, appellant believed that no value could be placed on appellee’s equity interest and that, accordingly, this interest did not qualify as “wages” under the WPCL. 4.

In Interest of JR

436 Pa. Super. 416 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1994

J.R. first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it qualified A.B. competent to testify. Specifically, J.R. contends that AB. did not understand her duty to tell the truth. … Clearly, it does not strain the very limits of credulity to suggest that, when J.R. removed A.B.’s clothing, lifted her up, and licked her vaginal area, his conduct fell within the purview of the indecent assault statute.

Constantine, K. v. Lenox Instr. Co.

323 A.3d 1281 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2024

In substance, Esterline’s Corporate Veil Motion was clearly an attempt to have Judge Keogh revisit whether summary judgment should be granted. … The terms of the Lenox Board of Directors and Officers were open-endedly set to expire “when successor elected and qualified.” See id. It appears that no such elections ever took place.

Mikula v. Ford Motor Co.

451 Pa. Super. 560 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1996

Because the Lemon Law protects only purchasers of new motor vehicles, any person seeking recourse under it must establish that the vehicle purchased falls within the definition of “new motor vehicle.” … Howard, 368 Pa.Super. 263, 271-73 , 533 A.2d 1055, 1059 (1987), alloc, den., 520 Pa. 576 , 549 A.2d 136 (1988) (neither lessee or lessor in a lease situation qualifies as a “purchaser” within the clear meaning of section

Lewis, R. v. Reading Hosp.

2025 Pa. Super. 191 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2025

We find the lack of an objection to the curative instructions to be of no moment because in seeking a mistrial, Appellants clearly argued that no instructions would have been a sufficient remedy. … The use of “factual cause” however does not appear to be inconsistent with well-established law that refers to “substantial factor” in a negligence action.

Smith v. Grab

705 A.2d 894 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1997

Singer clearly opined that the type of cancer for which Mrs. … Clearly, Dr. Grab and Ms. Burke were the prevailing parties in this negligenee/misrepresentation action. Only Mr.

Com. v. Rivera, J.

2026 Pa. Super. 71 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2026

Super. 2024),]” to establish that the joint contained marijuana. … In Akhmedov, supra, a vehicular homicide case, this Court stated that [m]ere similarities between a defendant’s prior bad acts and the crimes for which he is being tried will not qualify for a Rule 404(

Blumer v. Ford Motor Co.

2011 Pa. Super. 99 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 2011

[O]ur standard of review when faced with an appeal from the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court clearly and palpably committed an error of law that controlled the outcome of the case … a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified

Peerless Indemnity v. Cincinnati Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2015

To the extent that the Zern complaint is relevant to a determination of whether Wyatt qualifies as an additional insured under the Peerless policy, a comparison of that complaint to the Peerless policy clearly indicates … that the allegations raised therein do not qualify Wyatt as an additional insured.

Parker v. Freilich

2002 Pa. Super. 188 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2002

However, a later motion should not be entertained or granted when a motion of the same kind has previously been denied, unless intervening changes in the facts or the law clearly warrant a new look at the question. Id. … Nor is there any reason why doctors who fail to provide this information should be immune from liability under the theory of ostensible agency. ¶ 23 Having determined that ostensible agency is applicable when a physician

Gradel v. Inouye

252 Pa. Super. 392 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1977

Wecht, an eminently qualified physician, testified unequivocally that the hospital’s failure to provide the decedent with the kind of treatment that he should have had under the circumstances demonstrated an absence of reasonable … Corn’s testimony, previously quoted, fails more clearly than Dr. Wecht’s to meet “a standard of certainty”. He could not say that a diagnosis of cancer at any of the dates when the boy was brought to Dr.

Commonwealth v. Simms

284 Pa. Super. 528 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 1981

The choice of the word “designed” clearly indicates that the court was employing in its analysis an “intentional” rather than a “gross negligence” standard, in accord with former Justice Pomeroy’s opinion in Potter, supra … The trial judge, who was in the best position to observe first hand the prosecutor’s conduct, found that he was not acting in bad faith and that he believed in good faith that his statement qualified under an exception to

Davis v. Berwind Corp.

433 Pa. Super. 342 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1994

(3) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the plaintiff's employer was not a defendant in this case because of the immunity provided under the Workers' Compensation Act after plaintiff's counsel … Clearly, foreseeability is the first part of this two-part, conjunctive test.

Thomas, L. v. Ott, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2021

Landlord did not argue anything below about the sufficiency of Tenant’s pleadings, nor did he clearly assert that he had no duty to Tenant because he was a landlord out of possession. … contracts must be construed with every intendment against the party who seeks the immunity from liability; [and] (4) the burden to establish immunity from liability is upon the party who asserts such immunity

Starr v. Allegheny General Hospital

305 Pa. Super. 215 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1982

The rationale for this rule of evidence has been clearly set forth in Commonwealth v. … Experts, notwithstanding their competency to render an opinion, are not all equally experienced and qualified.

Alan R. v. Kemper National Insurance Companies

449 Pa. Super. 620 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1996

To qualify as an “aggrieved party” the person must “(a) have a substantial interest in the subject-matter of the litigation; (b) the interest must be direct; and (c) the interest must be immediate and not a remote consequence … Appellants claim that it is unnecessary for them to have been denied full tort recovery in New Jersey as a prerequisite to establish their standing.

Com. v. D'Agostino, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2016

Therefore, we affirm on the basis of that court’s opinion and need only reiterate that judicial decisions are not new facts for the purposes of establishing an exception to the PCRA time-bar * Former Justice specially … By employing the past tense in writing this provision, the legislature clearly intended that the right was already recognized at the time the petition was filed.

In the Interest of S.T.S., Jr.

2013 Pa. Super. 235 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2013

Notwithstanding the primacy of the plain meaning doctrine as best representative of legislative intent, the rules of construction offer several important qualifying precepts. … So clearly, he meets the diagnosis of conduct disorder and has been diagnosed at least once in his records already.

Com. v. Pena, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2024

It is well established that “trial courts are invested with broad discretion in crafting jury instructions, and such instructions will be upheld so long as they clearly and accurately present the law to the jury for its … The averments in the affidavit clearly tie Appellant to the murder and describe his use of a cellphone to communicate with Decedent prior to the shooting.