Case law

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."

Andre, S. v. Hinton, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2022

The Trial Court Erred in Establishing Paternity Without Due Process for the Defendant for Refusal to Swear In – Constitutional Violations VI. … Although the support order purported to be “final,” the parties and the court clearly contemplated further proceedings in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Com. v. Brensinger, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2018

expert opinions, not within 60 days of scientific determinations supporting those ____________________________________________ [C]onsistent with the statutory language, in determining whether a petitioner qualifies … The testimony provided by Appellant’s experts at the hearing clearly established that science relating to SBS had evolved in the years subsequent to Appellant’s trial.

Commonwealth v. Lynch

270 Pa. Super. 554 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 1980

Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is clearly not required at this stage. Commonwealth v. Rick, 244 Pa.Super. 33 , 366 A.2d 302 (1976). … (b) Defenses prohibited — It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office, had

Com. v. Edwards, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 2018

In this case, the evidence establishes that the Commonwealth struck Juror 67 with discriminatory intent; therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s factual finding was clearly erroneous.18 18In … The trial court’s finding to the contrary - 26 - J-S17003-17 was clearly erroneous.

In Re Estate of Alexander

2000 Pa. Super. 206 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2000

The court clearly had the power to issue this order. … The claims against Bowen were dismissed for failure to allege a malpractice action and because Bowen was held statutorily immune from liability under 20 Pa.C.S. § 3521 for distributions made in accordance with a court order

Com. v. Lehman, R.

278 A.3d 321 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2022

As such, the Majority aptly concludes that “Renewal indisputably qualifies as a correctional institution.” Majority Opinion at 6. … The following well-established legal principles govern this determination.

Commonwealth v. Watts

179 Pa. Super. 398 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1955

The error here is not fundamental in view of the fact that the judge clearly and separately defined each offense. … If there are only a handful of such cases in all medical history the jury should have some indication of that fact through qualified medical witnesses.

Commonwealth v. Ellis

700 A.2d 948 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1997

Clearly, such testimony is beyond the knowledge, information, or skill possessed by an ordinary juror. Montavo, supra. … At the end of trial, counsel stated that after discussing the alibi defense with Ellis, Ellis agreed to withdraw the alibi defense because the defense witnesses did not qualify as alibi witnesses and the defense chose not

Com. v. Sanders, J.

2026 Pa. Super. 75 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2026

invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and (B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly … There, this Court held that when an eyewitness recanted his 1980 trial testimony in 2016, the statement did not qualify as a statement against interest because the statute of limitations on perjury had run.

Seven Springs Farm, Inc. v. Croker

2000 Pa. Super. 72 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2000

. ¶ 3 In my view, a cash-out merger clearly falls within the parameters of the Buy/ Sell Agreement, even when strictly construed. … Clearly, Seven Springs, as a corporation, is bound to effectuate all of the provisions in the Buy/Sell Agreement.

Com. v. Barringer, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2015

The caller was silent but the receiver could clearly hear one man telling another to leave the bar. … Appellant argues “there is not enough in the record to establish reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop.” Appellant’s Brief at 16.

Com. v. Blackston, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2024

Floyd, to whom the Commonwealth granted immunity, testified at trial that he understood Appellant’s statement to mean that the driver of the truck was the eyewitness to Mr. Freeman’s murder. Id. … In his final issue, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing Detective Verrecchio to testify about obtaining search warrants, which involves expert testimony, when the trial court never qualified him as

Com. v. Brokenborough, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2015

He continued: "I can say that it was clearly before the trial, because we were getting close to trial and our minds were already made up." (Id.) … The evidence clearly establishes that Mille/made a timely communication of the offer to Petitioner and that Petitioner rejected lt.: Even assuming, arguendo, that Miller rendered deficient performance by either

McGovern, J. & S. v. East End Gun Club

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2014

Whether the trial court clearly erred in concluding that the McGoverns failed to introduce prima facie evidence of title by a preponderance of the evidence, and should have entered verdict … While these cases all indicate that tax deeds can be evidence of ownership and title, it does not necessarily follow that all tax deeds qualify as prima facie evidence of good title.

Seneca Resources Corp. v. S & T Bank

2015 Pa. Super. 181 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2015

Such a fee is a fee simple, because it may last forever in the grantee and his heirs and assigns, the duration depending upon the concurrence of collateral circumstances which qualify and debase the purity … In the Assignment, the Appellants clearly stated that the conveyance was subject to the rights provided to Jefferson under the Lease. Id.

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. … [J]udicial decisions do not qualify as previously-unknown facts. See Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Daulton, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2017

Olivo, 127 A.3d 769 (Pa. 2015) (“Section 5920 is clearly a rule of evidence. . . . [it] merely provides the substantive authorization to present that testimony.”). … A judge's ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—even a stern and short-tempered judge's ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—remain immune.

Commonwealth v. Boyd

2003 Pa. Super. 412 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2003

Whether Appellant was denied his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when guilty plea counsel failed to object/demur when Commonwealth failed to establish a victim within the meaning of Restitution Statute … Lynch, 820 A.2d 728, 732 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶ 21 Clearly, after entering a guilty plea, Appellant’s counsel could not have raised the defense of entrapment.

FREEDMAN v. PHILA. TAX REV. BD.

212 Pa. Super. 442 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1968

As such, its activities were clearly "business" within the meaning of the ordinance. Cf. Tax Review Board v. Brine Corporation, 414 Pa. 488 , 200 A. 2d 883 (1964); Kungsgaten, Inc. v. … The City, in Shapiro sought to treat the partnership as an entity separate and distinct from its partners, thereby establishing for it a *449 situs or residence within the City for tax purposes.