Case law

Commonwealth v. Fowler

2007 Pa. Super. 219 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2007

We agree, in part. ¶ 10 “It is now well[-]established that a PCRA petition brought after an appeal nunc pro tunc is considered [an] appellant’s first PCRA petition, and the one-year time clock will not begin to run until … Johnson, 803 A.2d 1291, 1293 (Pa.Super.2002) (citation omitted) (concluding the appellant’s motion to vacate sentence qualified as a PCRA petition). See also Commonwealth v.

Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. Mumma

2007 Pa. Super. 77 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2007

In other words, in order for Penn-sy’s first argument to stand, this Court would have to assume that Pennsy has established that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its trespass and nuisance counts. … the Defendants] based upon actions they took in October of 2005 without acknowledging or considering additional actions taken subsequent to October of 2005 that were known to the court, and to counsel for [Pennsy], that clearly

L.M.P. v. E.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2016

The Appointment Order also established Appellant’s rate of compensation at $75 per hour for out-of-court time and $100 per hour for in-court time, and provided for equal payment by Mother and Father. … S62018/16 unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, ill-will, or such lack of support in the law or record for the award to be clearly erroneous.” Id.

Graham v. Graham

2002 Pa. Super. 64 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2002

The record in Mealy clearly supported the conclusion that the relocation was not a momentary whim, and there were a multitude of factors that *918 would improve the mother’s quality of life. … Nevertheless, the court concluded that Alisha “qualified that by saying she would want it to go on as it is with her being principally with her mother.” Id. at 15.

In Re: Adoption of: D.K.B., a minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2024

She attends daycare, is up-to-date with all immunizations, and is developmentally on track. C.W. is an adoptive resource. … The evidence presented by CYS clearly establishes that Mother did not complete the objectives established for her.

Com. v. Hoilett, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2025

Craig Judd, an expert qualified in the area of forensics and DNA analysis, handled the DNA samples at the laboratory and conducted an analysis of the DNA. … He contends the Commonwealth did not establish the serious bodily injury element.

Commonwealth v. Eliff

300 Pa. Super. 423 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1982

The scope of our review of the denial of a motion for suppression of evidence is firmly established. … A highly sophisticated set of rules, qualified by all sorts of ifs, and, and buts or requiring the drawing of subtle nuances and hairline distinctions, may be the sort of heady stuff upon which the facile minds of lawyers

Trapasso, H. v. Trapasso, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2021

of both qualified and non-qualified assets consistent with the totality of the marital estate. … Although Plaintiff concedes that factoring in a market effect on qualified assets may be generally reasonable, it is well-established that “[a] Trial Court may not consider evidence outside the record in making its determination

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Estate of Kennedy

2025 Pa. Super. 276 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2025

After Appellant filed its claim with Erie seeking stacked UM/UIM benefits, Erie in turn filed the instant declaratory judgment action to establish that such coverage was barred under the above exclusion in the Erie Policy … To the contrary, the language in the UM/UIM Endorsement of the Erie Policy clearly provides that Dennis Kennedy’s motorcycle was a “miscellaneous vehicle” for purposes of the UM/UIM Endorsement, precluding UM/UIM coverage

Commonwealth v. Ritz

2016 Pa. Super. 296 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2016

SORNA “added crimes to the list defined as sexually violent offenses, and established a three-tiered system for classifying such offenses and their corresponding registration periods.” Commonwealth v. … Nonetheless, as the Hainesworth court recognized, plea agreements clearly are contractual in nature. See Puckett v.

Com. v. Alexander, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2024

Carter established a legal relationship as husband and wife, nor can he establish circumstantial evidence of constant cohabitation and a broad general reputation of marriage within the community. … Immunity Instruction Appellant also argues that although the trial court granted defense counsel’s request to instruct the jury about the Commonwealth’s grant of immunity to Maurice Carter, the trial court did not

Commonwealth v. Mejia-Arias

1999 Pa. Super. 147 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 1999

To establish a framework within which to consider whether or when appellee is entitled to review the personnel files, we must first consider the purposes for which he sought review. ¶8 Appellee initially sought the BNI officers … After setting forth the degree of access applicable to absolute and qualified statutory privileges, the Herrick court observed, “ ‘privileges which are not statutorily enacted, but rather are recognized by the common law,

Com. v. Bennett, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2025

As such, in line with the clearly-established precedent referenced above, we find that the newly-discovered fact exception does not apply. … Appellant therefore fails to qualify for an exception to the timeliness requirements of the PCRA, and we hold that the PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant's PCRA petition as untimely. Order AFFIRMED.

Generette v. Donegal Mutual Insurance

2005 Pa. Super. 314 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2005

Yet, in reviewing the grant of summary judgment, we should reverse the trial court only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. Gutteridge v. A.P. … Just as the creation of stacking in subsection (a) does not utilize “inter-policy stacking” or “intra-policy stacking” labels, neither is the waiver option qualified as to any type of stacking. Id. at 12.

Rm v. Js

20 A.3d 496 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 2011

Thus, Father is correct that Maternal Grandmother does not qualify as "a person acting as a parent." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5402. Nonetheless, relying on the holding in Wagner v. … See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1926 ("No statute shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly.").

Borsari, D. v. Latrobe Area Hospital, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2026

Appellant argues that the evidence was relevant and that our Court’s decision in Winschel qualifies as an exception to hearsay under the public records exception pursuant to Pa.R.E. 803(8). Id. at 44 (“Dr. … The jury was permitted to hear proper areas of inquiry in an attempt to establish that Dr. Garrett was an expert with a bias for the defense.

Diesel v. Caputo

244 Pa. Super. 195 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1976

Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to appellees, they established the following facts at trial. … Caputo’s actions qualified him as the “alter-ego” of the IAPBA, 6 the evidence clearly demonstrated that the IAPBA gave value for the improvements to the business premises.

BMO Harris Bank v. Fisher, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2020

This court’s] scope of review of a trial court’s order granting or denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where it is established … Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In Re Barnes Foundation

453 Pa. Super. 436 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 1996

Thus, the use of the specific home they established was merely one method, convenient at the time of the trusts’ establishment, for carrying out their intent.” Id. at 471-72 , 349 S.E.2d at 658 . … Mazias’ principal intentions it clearly must give way.

Com. v. Rivera, H.

2024 Pa. Super. 48 · 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).