Case law

Com. v. Tedesco, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2017

She also raises the issue of spousal immunity, contending that testimony of either co-defendant is subject to spousal immunity and is inadmissible against the other spouse. We disagree. … As to spousal immunity, as the trial court recognized, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5913 provides for spousal immunity in a criminal proceeding but with certain exceptions, one of which is a criminal proceeding that includes a murder

Com. v. Akhmedov, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2019

Mere similarities between a defendant’s prior bad acts and the crimes for which he is being tried will not qualify for a Rule 404(b)(2) exception. See Commonwealth v. Sitler, 144 A.3d 156, 163 (Pa. … The Riggs panel found the “evidence clearly support[ed] the conclusion that [Riggs] was aware of the risks involved in reckless driving.”

Commonwealth v. Rodgers

413 Pa. Super. 498 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1992

Our law is well established that the trial court enjoys broad discretion in admitting or excluding evidence. Commonwealth v. … In essence, Frye assures that those most qualified to assess the general validity of a scientific method will have the determinative voice by requiring that the principle or discovery forming the basis for evidence presented

In Re DEM

727 A.2d 570 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1999

(Commonwealth's Brief at 5). ¶ 7 On appeal from the grant of a defendant's motion to suppress, this Court applies the following standard of review: When the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order, we follow a clearly … In carrying out searches and other disciplinary functions pursuant to such policies, school officials act as representatives of the state, not merely as surrogates for the parents, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity

Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Morrisville Hampton Village Realty Ltd. Partnership

456 Pa. Super. 338 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1997

Therefore, she clearly qualified as a person directly or indirectly liable to the judgment creditor for payment of the debt and consequently, possessed the standing necessary to petition the court for relief under section … The record shows that there was a sale of the real estate to the plaintiff for costs ($22,-131.36) and that no petition was filed within the time provided by statute to establish the fair market value of the property.

DeMedio v. DeMEDIO

215 Pa. Super. 255 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 1969

The Pennsylvania annulment statute contains no such qualifying element. We cannot supply this qualification by judicial interpretation. … “Viewed in this light, we think the proof offered by respondent 'shows quite clearly that Parrish thoroughly understood what he was doing when he married.

Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pennsylvania

2006 Pa. Super. 31 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2006

An abuse of discretion generally will not be found unless there is “a showing of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” … Although a qualified offer was required to remain open for 90 days prior to the 2002 amendment, there was no requirement of an express "written” clause pertaining to how long the offer had to remain open.

Buchecker v. Reading Co.

271 Pa. Super. 35 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1979

The court said that a railroad company “cannot use the stop, look, and listen sign as a badge of *46 immunity from liability occurring as a result of non-visibility. … The “first view” position established by the appellant places the front bumper of a car 9 feet from the train.

Com. v. Hanner, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2023

Whether language qualifies as “fighting words” requires consideration of the facts. In Commonwealth v. … We now address whether the speech qualified as a “true threat.”

CM Regent Ins. v. Integrity Roofing

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

Thus, our responsibility as an appellate court is to determine whether the record either establishes that the material facts are undisputed or contains insufficient evidence of facts to make out a prima … CM Regent asserts that Integrity Roofing “should not be immunized [pursuant to the waiver of ____________________________________________ 1 “[A]bsent a United States Supreme Court pronouncement, the decisions of federal

Com. v. Diaz, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2025

[Diaz] claims that the court and jury were confused as to which act occurred where and when . . ., but the testimony clearly set forth when and where the events took place. … - 23 - J-A27029-24 Here, the court properly qualified Brust as an expert.

Wenninger, B. v. HTSS, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2021

Specifically, they allege that HTSS “knew or should have known that [] Kramer was not qualified, skilled[,] and/or trained to perform the tasks he was assigned at the property and was likely to perform such tasks, in general … The law governing the “borrowed” employee is well- established.

Com. v. Cacho, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2023

established [f]ederal [l]aw as announced by the United States Supreme Court,” and recognized by a federal district court in Brooks v. … Judicial decisions do not, however, qualify as previously- unknown facts. See Commonwealth v.

Connelly v. Roper Corp.

404 Pa. Super. 67 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1991

The evidence established that between the time of its 1968 manufacture and the 1982 accident, the snow thrower had undergone substantial changes that resulted in an increase in both engine speed and vibration. … Clearly, the industry was aware that individuals using snowblowers occasionally placed their hands in the chute.

Brownlee, J. v. Home Depot

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2020

The trial court disposed of this claim as follows: -8- J-A17017-20 Home Depot argues that a photograph of [Appellee] shortly after he fell “clearly establishes … Levenberg’s testimony conclusively established Appellee suffered some injury as a result of the fall, it did not establish that Appellee fell because he slipped on a piece of wood on the floor, nor could it.

J.M. v. K.W.

164 A.3d 1260 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2017

Nevertheless, we found that the evidence adduced during the relocation hearing established that the proposed move constituted a relocation. … There still has not been a formal determination of the children’s best interest that would qualify as a “final” order. 4 Hence, the interim order was temporary in name only.

In the Int. of: M.M., Appeal of: E.M.

302 A.3d 189 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2023

If the language of the statute clearly and unambiguously sets forth the legislative intent, it is the duty of the court to apply that intent to the case at hand and not look beyond the statutory … For example, a live-in nanny would similarly not qualify, nor would a teacher. Notably, the juvenile court, DHS, and the GAL concede that Appellant was not a party to the dependency proceedings.

Com. v. Ward, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2026

that following these amendments, (1) a VOP court must first find the Commonwealth has overcome the statutory presumption against total confinement, and (2) sentence the violator in accordance with the penalty scheme established … “Because the legislature clearly intended the statute at issue to reflect a recidivist philosophy, we agree with Goodwin it would be an absurd and unintended result to allow the VOP court in effect to give ____________

Ashdale, T. v. Guidi Homes

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2021

Our Supreme Court stressed that appellate courts must “construe the collateral order doctrine narrowly, and insist that each one of its three prongs be ‘clearly present’ before collateral appellate review is allowed.” … As we set forth above, Appellants argued that Appellees’ experts failed to establish that the damage complained of occurred in the eleventh and twelfth years after construction. Id. at 10.

Robert Half International Inc. v. Marlton Technologies, Inc.

2006 Pa. Super. 145 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2006

Marlton's counterclaim did not qualify for immediate referral to the arbitration program under the plain language of Section 7361. … Rule 1303(g) clearly provides that "[a] case filed as an Arbitration case may be certified as a major case only with Court approval."