Case law

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.

Com. v. Patti, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2025

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. … layperson,” and he is thus qualified as an expert for the purposes of Rule 702.

Shepp v. Shepp

2003 Pa. Super. 140 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2003

The child was, in fact, warned that only by committing an illicit act could she comply with the requirements of her religion. ¶ 9 Appellant's intent with his own daughter too, as the trial court clearly perceived from his … See also Morris, 412 A.2d at 142 (determining that while the adoption of a belief is absolutely protected, there exists only a qualified right to act on that belief).

T.M. v. Elwyn, Inc.

2008 Pa. Super. 113 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2008

merely “denied” the petitions for review rather than dismissing them as moot, the result should be no different, i.e., Appellants should be permitted to pursue a collateral appeal as of right if the discovery orders at issue qualify … plain reading of the order also requires Elwyn to produce all documents relating to allegations of sexual conduct between the students themselves, i.e., not involving any El-wyn employee, contractor, or volunteer, which is clearly

Com. v. George, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2015

. § 5920,[1] as it clearly and plainly infringes upon the judiciary’s exclusive rulemaking power regarding courtroom procedure? 2. … Brief For Appellee, at 32-33 (acknowledging that satisfying section 5920 is not enough, absent precedential ruling by an appellate court that science is now sufficiently established and has gained general acceptance by

Com. v. Maestre, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2026

. § 3743(b) when the statute does not establish a mandatory fine? 2. … However, “[i]t is well-established that § 9726(c) does not apply to mandatory fines.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Carpenter, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2021

The Commonwealth did not need to establish an affiliation between the G.P.S. data extracted from Carpenter’s cell phones and the real-world physical locations of that data. … The jury clearly credited the victim’s testimony, along with the testimony of multiple police officers who corroborated the evidence inculpating Carpenter.

Hull v. Rose, Schmidt, Hasley & DiSalle P.C.

700 A.2d 996 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1997

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was confronted with the sole issue of whether federal anti-discrimination ■laws, including Title VII, 4 protected a general partner of an accounting firm, specifically, whether the partner qualified … In its explicit holding that “bona fide general partners are not employees under the Antidiscrimination Acts,” id. at 277, the court focused on the fact that Plaintiffs status as partner clearly placed her in a different

Sachs, D. v. Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2026

Indeed, the insurance company here clearly disclosed it was acting on behalf of [Appellee]– the party who caused injuries. … Yet, inexplicably, [Appellants] claim apparent immunity from the normal operation of the statute of limitations because of a denial of insurance claim on October 10, 2022, and then from something that

Folmar, G. v. Folmar, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2016

Wife further pled “[I]t is believed and therefore averred that the [QDRO] -3- J-S17023-16 in question has been established as a qualified order and is an existing order within the … Clearly, the trial court resolved this dispute on the merits.

Lupkin v. Sternick

431 Pa. Super. 300 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 1994

Latman did not qualify his conclusions on the basis that he did not have the results of tests previously performed on appellee. … Latman, M.D., 11/18/91, at 56. [2] We note that it was not established that appellee was at fault in the second accident.

Com. v. Lewis, N.

292 A.3d 555 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2023

Further, publication of prejudicial information about the case that would be inadmissible at trial is also clearly prohibited by the Rule. See id. … Whether or not the CBS television segments were inflammatory, we fail to see how the two broadcasts on one station in the local community qualified as sustained and pervasive.

In Re: M.E., Appeal of: M.E.

2026 Pa. Super. 30 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2026

See Memorandum Decision, 3/18/25, at 5 (concluding that “[t]he hearing evidence clearly established that [M.E.] is unable to handle his finances, no less restrictive alternative exists under the circumstances, and … The Court noted that “three well-qualified experts testified that appellant is competent, and their testimony was uncontradicted.” Id.

Commonwealth v. Gallagher

2005 Pa. Super. 116 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2005

Although the trial court states in its Opinion that "[t]he evidence, in no uncertain terms, clearly establishes that [Appellant] was fully aware of the fact that his young companion was a minor," (Trial Ct. … Notably, the term "child" is not defined in the statute or otherwise qualified by age in the definition of the crime.

Com. v. Freeman, M. A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2015

Expert testimony from a witness who is qualified in the field of drug distribution may be sufficient to establish the intent to deliver. Commonwealth v. … The Commonwealth clearly presented sufficient, if not overwhelming, evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant possessed marijuana with intent to deliver.

Abramowich, P. v. Albert, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2015

Furthermore, [w]hen we review a ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence, including the testimony of an expert witness, our standard is well-established and very narrow. … 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

Estate of C.W.

640 A.2d 427 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1994

Although C.W. has never been pregnant, all the experts qualified to express an opinion on this subject agreed that there was no reason to believe that C.W. was incapable of reproduction. … Clearly there does not need to be a male residing in C.W.'s CLA for a man to be present there.

Chester Upland School District v. Edward J. Meloney, Inc.

2006 Pa. Super. 141 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2006

Our 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 that the court committed … Clearly, the chiller was part of the Work. *1063 ¶ 21 Finally, Subparagraph 3.18.3 leaves no doubt that Architect’s claim against Contractor must fail.

Commonwealth v. Kretchmar

2000 Pa. Super. 63 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2009

It was also established that Mr. Rosenblum had owned a .22 caliber bolt-action rifle mounted with a scope. … In plain language, this choice of words clearly conveys a probability far less than certainty.

Com. v. Champney, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2016

[Appellee] replied that she probably got immunity. … United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), to argue that Appellee’s request was equivocal and he did not clearly ask for an attorney. Thus his statements to Sgt.