Case law

In the Int. of: J.W., Appeal of: J.W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2026

Then we can evaluate what information the officer possessed at that time and if that information qualifies as reasonable suspicion. … We find the above information was sufficient for the trial court to qualify the area as a high crime area.

In re the Adoption of R.K.Y.

72 A.3d 669 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2013

trustworthiness: ‘The fact that experts reasonably and regularly rely on this type of information merely to practice their profession lends strong indicia of reliability to source material, when it is presented through a qualified … The first and third requirements were clearly satisfied here, as OCY filed its petitions for termination of parental rights more than one year after the children had been removed from the home, and the trial court found as

Commonwealth v. Thur

2006 Pa. Super. 208 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2006

Such driving was not constitutionally immune from punishment. The Legislature can and has provided a sanction for such driving in its effort to deter drunk driving. … In that light, we decide if the evidence and all reasonable inferences from that evidence are sufficient to establish the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Tjb v. Ec

438 Pa. Super. 529 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1995

Although appellants' in loco parentis status qualifies them to petition to terminate the parental rights of appellee and E.C. to M.J.C., this status does not also necessarily *542 provide them standing to seek custody of … Although appellee knew that M.J.C. was born on August 13, 1993, the record clearly reveals that appellee did not know nor did he acknowledge that he was M.J.C.'

Com. v. Barber, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2018

“[W]here the record clearly demonstrates that a guilty plea colloquy was conducted, during which it became evident that the defendant understood the nature of the charges against him, the voluntariness of the plea is established … In fact, throughout the lengthy colloquy, Appellant responded clearly and appropriately to the many questions put to her.

Com. v. Green, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2026

Relevantly, a witness may offer lay testimony in the form of an opinion if it is: (a) rationally based on the witness’ perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’ testimony or to determining a fact in … Further, Green insists that “the evidence was not so overwhelming to establish guilt[,]” given that Osorio “testified that there was no altercation and [that] she was incorrect in her earlier statements.” Id.

Com. v. Burns, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2021

There was credible evidence presented by a qualified expert witness that Burns could not have been the driver of the car. … F.R.E. 103, a motion in limine may preserve an objection for appeal without any need to renew the objection at trial, but only if the trial court clearly and definitively rules on the motion. . . .

Wolfe, T. v. Ross, R.

2015 Pa. Super. 110 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2015

Thus, the burden was on the insurer to establish its application. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers, 595 Pa. 147 , 938 A.2d 286, 290 (2007). … The duty to defend remains until the insurer "clearly defeats every cause of action averred in the underlying complaint.”

Monroe, A. v. CBH20, LP

286 A.3d 785 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2022

Monroe’s opposition to Camelback’s motion was that Camelback’s release did not immunize it from reckless conduct, as our Supreme Court ruled in Tayar v. … Monroe must establish that Camelback did an act or intentionally failed to do an act which it was its duty to Ms.

Joyce v. Boulevard Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Center, P.C.

694 A.2d 648 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 1997

The standard by which an expert witness is qualified, however, is a liberal one. Lira v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 384 Pa.Super. 503 , 559 A.2d 550 (1989). See Flanagan v. … Clearly expert testimony would assist the trier of fact. Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to exclude the testimony of Doctors Ratner and Hume.

Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co.

2009 Pa. Super. 102 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2009

To establish misuse of the product, the defendant must show that the use was “unforeseeable or outrageous.” Childers, 681 A.2d at 208 . … See Brief of Amicus Curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. in Support of Defendants-Appellees at 3 ("Crashworthiness cannot qualify as a strict liability theory under Pennsylvania law....

Com. v. Nguyen, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2016

Appellant instead posits that trial counsel should have subpoenaed D.N. and let him invoke the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment on the stand, or negotiate immunity for D.N. with the Commonwealth. … Therefore, as a matter of law, L.U.’s competency was established. See Commonwealth v. Moore, 980 A.2d 647, 652 (Pa.

Com. v. Moyer, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2016

Leber never offer 5 to 10 years with immunity. … Allenbaugh was not appropriately qualified as an expert witness and that his attorney did not object t? that failure to qualify. The Court notes that Mr.

Ben Avon Borough v. Ohio Valley Water Co.

68 Pa. Super. 561 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1917

Co., 243 Pa. 401 . “ ‘Going value/ or ‘going concern value/ i. e., the value which inheres in a plant where its business is established, as distinguished from one which has yet to establish its business has been the subject … There was sufficient evidence before the commission to determine the fair amount and while the company, in undertaking to allow exorbitant amounts, fell into error, and such issues were clearly unreasonable and grossly in

Jackson v. Travelers Insurance

414 Pa. Super. 336 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 1992

motor vehicle owned by the Federal Government or any of its agencies, departments or authorities. (5) Is not the operator or occupant of a motor vehicle owned by a self-insurer or by an individual or entity who or which is immune … In a recent decision interpreting the No-Fault Act, our supreme court stated: "The purpose of the No-Fault Act was to establish `a Statewide system of prompt and adequate basic loss benefits for motor vehicle accident victims

Com. v. Ashford, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2025

Armstrong does not qualify as a victim who is entitled to receive restitution. Appellant concludes this portion of his sentence is illegal on these grounds, and this Court must vacate the award of restitution to her. … The statute clearly provides the following.

Com. v. Owens, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2026

The Commonwealth does not need to establish actual injury. Commonwealth v. Lyons, 555 A.2d 920, 925 (Pa. Super. 1989). … Further, COs are clearly performing governmental functions by facilitating the supervision and management of inmates who are serving incarcerable sentences.

Com. v. Woodard

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2015

The present petition was filed on February 9, 2015, and so it is clearly untimely on its face. … First, it is well established that recently published case law does not qualify as “after discovered facts” for purposes of establishing an exception to the PCRA’s time-bar. Commonwealth v.

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

284 A.3d 1202 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2022

In considering Attorney Dempsey’s issues, we recognize that the role of counsel in guardianship proceedings is not clearly defined in the guardianship statute. … To establish incapacity, the petitioner must present testimony, in person or by deposition from individuals qualified by training and experience in evaluating individuals with incapacities of the type alleged

Ball v. Minnick

414 Pa. Super. 242 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1992

If the parties wish to have the guidelines apply with certain qualifiers, that is equally available to them. … It does not imply intentional wrong or bad faith, or misconduct, nor any reflection on the judge but means the clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment — one [that is] clearly against logic and effect of such facts as are