Case law

Commonwealth v. Vanskiver

819 A.2d 69 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2003

In order to avoid confusion on this point, I would clearly overrule McCalman . ¶ 14 Accordingly, I concur in the result reached by the majority. 9 ¶ 15 President Judge DEL SOLE and Judges JOYCE and TODD join the Concurring … While the majority here has concluded that the electronic home monitoring involved in this case does not qualify for credit for time served, by adopting Chiappini's, several factor analysis, the opportunity for a windfall

Sunoco (R&M) v. PA Nat'l Mutual Ins.

2024 Pa. Super. 169 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2024

The rules for interpreting the meaning of a contract are well-established. … To establish a right to indemnification, the indemnitee must establish (1) the scope of the indemnification agreement, (2) the nature of the underlying claim, (3) that the underlying claim fell within the scope of the

Commonwealth v. Graham

454 Pa. Super. 169 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1996

Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 587 , 68 S.Ct. 222, 225 , 92 L.Ed. 210 , 216 (1948) (the Court was "not convinced that a person, by mere presence in a suspected car, loses immunities from search of his person to which he would otherwise … At that point in time, again, there is no search because he's able to see the drugs in plain view, and that doctrine establishes the right for this officer then to place Mr. Graham under arrest. And once he places Mr.

In the Int. of: M.K.L., Appeal of: Phila. DHS

2026 Pa. Super. 33 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2026

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion and commit an error of law in denying the petitions to terminate parental rights where competent evidence clearly and convincingly established each of the four … - 26 - J-A27031-25 competent evidence clearly and convincingly established that it is in the children’s best interests to terminate Mother’s parental rights

Mundie v. Christ United Church of Christ

2009 Pa. Super. 262 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2009

Such facts clearly would create a contractual relationship. ¶ 6 “A church is always free to burden its activities voluntarily through contracts, and such contracts are fully enforceable in civil court.” Minker v. … And there are neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, which can be applied without “establishing” churches to which property is owed.

In Re Paxson Trust I

2006 Pa. Super. 9 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2006

A conclusion or judgment constitutes an abuse of discretion if it is so lacking in support as to be clearly erroneous. Id. … The Children cite instead to case establishing that if trust property is sold for profit, the profit is principal.

Com. v. Banks, C.

253 A.3d 768 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 2021

Currier’s second trial qualified as the retrial of the same offense under Ashe, he consented to it. … Clearly, concerns of governmental overreaching are implicated in that scenario.

Ld v. Bd

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.

Walter v. Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC Health System

2005 Pa. Super. 131 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2005

It is well-settled that “a party seeking judicial resolution of a controversy in this Commonwealth must, as a prerequisite, establish that he has standing to maintain the action.” Bergdoll v. … They contend this conclusion “directly contradicts Plaintiffs’ allegations and argument” and is clearly not supported by the record. Id. at 21.

Ungarean, T. v. CNA

2022 Pa. Super. 204 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2022

Here, subsection a. is clearly inapplicable to the facts of this case. … These two sections are in conflict, as a loss excluded by the Acts or Decisions exclusion would never qualify as a Covered Cause of Loss.

Com. v. Giddings, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2025

Inzinna’s testimony, arguing his report was deficient and he was not qualified to testify as an expert. … -6- J-S40043-25 be clearly erroneous.” Commonwealth v. Einhorn, … 911 A.2d 960, 972 (Pa. Super. 2006).

Woodard v. Chatterjee

2003 Pa. Super. 207 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 2003

Clearly missing from his list of “final diagnoses” is a diagnosis pertaining to cervical injury related to the June 1998 MVA. ¶ 10 In addition to Dr. … Clearly, his testimony on these disputed matters went beyond the fair scope of his reports. ¶ 22 However, we must also determine whether the improper admission of Dr.

Donoughe v. Lincoln Electric Co.

2007 Pa. Super. 309 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2007

Clearly, this witness’s unavailability could not be charged to Donoughe or the trial court either. … Epstein was not qualified to testify as an expert because, by his own admission, he lacked expertise in the chemical composition of welding rods and flux and was not an expert in welding. ¶ 45 Lincoln’s and Hobart’s argument

Nelson, D. v. Airco Welders Supply

107 A.3d 146 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2014

Each body, in its own sphere, is more qualified than this Court to embark upon change of such sweeping consequence. … The well-established frequency, regularity, and proximity test governs the sufficiency of proof to establish sufficient exposure to a given product to establish substantial causation. See Weible v.

Com. v. Bruschi, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2024

But we don’t know if this witness is qualified to answer that. … To establish the second element, “it must be shown that alcohol has substantially impaired the normal mental and physical faculties required to safely operate the vehicle.” Commonwealth v.

Staub v. Toy Factory, Inc.

2000 Pa. Super. 87 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2000

Voluntariness is established only when the circumstances manifest a willingness to accept the risk. Handschuh, 574 A.2d at 695 . Mere contributory negligence does not establish assumption of the risk. Fish v. … As noted in the comment to the Restatement discussing implied assumption of risk, “Since interpretation of conduct is seldom so clearly indicated that reasonable men could not differ as to the conclusion, it is ordinarily

Com. v. Wunderlich, J.

2025 Pa. Super. 38 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2025

that the computer used in this case qualified as a “communication facility” under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512. … While both crimes clearly target offenders whose conduct tends to endanger or harm the morality of minors, each offense includes an element the other does not.

Com. v. Nedab, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2014

Whether the Court below erred when it when contrary to clearly established Federal and State Law when it dismissed Petitioner’s PCRA Petition as untimely filed when in fact, Petitioner had filed his PCRA … However, Appellant’s instant PCRA petition, filed on August 21, 2012, does not qualify for the grace proviso as it was neither Appellant’s first PCRA petition, nor was it filed before January 16, 1997.

Com. v. Engram, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2015

Nevertheless, the evidence is clearly sufficient. … The evidence was clearly sufficient to sustain the first degree murder conviction.

Campisi, J. v. Campisi, C. v. Chesapeake App.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2015

A document itself qualifies as hearsay when it contains such hearsay statements. Id. … Moreover, it is clearly established in the record that the jury was asked to determine whether or not the 1992 deed was a forgery, not whether or not [Appellant] did receive nominal consideration.