Case law

Com. v. Alicea, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2015

In his response to the PCRA Court’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, however, Appellant asserted that he “clearly stated [to PCRA counsel] that having a mental disorder impaired my ability to [file] a timely PCRA.” … According to Appellant, his diagnosis qualifies under the exception found at section 9545(b)(i)(ii). We disagree.

Jackson, N. v. Allegheny Valley School

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2015

AVS additionally argued that the immunity provisions of both the Mental Health Procedures Act and the Mental Health and Intellectual Disability Act preclude Appellants’ claims. … Johnson, 152 A. 633, 636 (Md. 1930) (Bond, C.J., dissenting) (“It adds nothing to the law, has no meaning which is not more clearly expressed for us in English, and brings confusion to our legal discussions.”).

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

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. 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.

Commonwealth v. Stokes

2011 Pa. Super. 261 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2011

Rather, he posits that “in order to prove the intent element necessary to establish constructive possession, the Commonwealth must present evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant actually knew … This tends to spotlight the accused if he fails to do the same thing and clearly invites an improper prejudicial inference from the jury. Tann, supra at 328 .

In Re RNJ

985 A.2d 273 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2009

The GPS report, which was substantiated, also alleged that Mother permitted drug activity to occur in the children's presence, and that six-year-old B.M.J. was not attending school due to insufficient immunization records … clearly warrants termination.

Com. v. Henderson, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2016

We previously summarized the rule established by Apprendi and its progeny as follows. … It is clearly the intent of the Legislature that a child who continues his pattern of serious and violent anti-social activity into adulthood, should not receive the benefit of a cloak of immunity regarding

Mowrey, J. v. Caylor, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2014

We first outline the elements that are needed to establish the existence of a prescriptive easement. … However, the rule clearly indicates that its listing of affirmative defenses is not exclusive.

Com. v. Allen, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2018

Appellant would indeed qualify. … Moreover, as the PCRA court explained, there is no evidence of record that Appellant’s guilty plea was anything other than knowing, voluntary, and intelligent: [T]he hearing record of the guilty plea colloquy clearly

Provident Credit Corp. v. Young

300 Pa. Super. 117 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 1982

Indeed, it is well established that where equitable circumstances exist, a default judgment may be opened regardless of the time that may have elapsed between entry of the judgment and filing of the petition to open. … However, “while a good defense would normally not be required in a trespass action, where present it can at least qualify as an equitable consideration favoring the opening of judgment.”

Com. v. Santiago-Burgos, J.

2024 Pa. Super. 73 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2024

In any event, Appellant included in his reproduced record a full-size colored copy of the Commonwealth’s exhibit, which clearly shows the tattoo at issue. … The Commonwealth also established the police discovered several items, which are commonly used in the drug distribution business, in the Residence.

Com. v. Banks, C.

2021 Pa. Super. 95 · 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.

Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance

2015 Pa. Super. 264 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2015

For this reason, we conclude that the competent evidence of record clearly and convincingly established that Conseco lacked a reasonable basis to deny LeAnn benefits under the Cancer Policy. … Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Foflygen v. Allegheny General Hospital

1999 Pa. Super. 6 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1999

We hold that the validity of a surgical patient’s informed consent depends upon the pretreatment information relayed to the patient, regardless of whether the disclosures are made by the treating physician or another qualified … (Appellant’s Brief at 3). ¶4 Our standard of review when faced with an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court clearly and palpably committed an error of law that controlled

In the Int. of: X.C., Appeal of: R.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2024

Levenbrown as an expert in pediatric child abuse, and Mother abandoned her attempt to qualify him as such. See id. at 142. Dr. … Henry was not qualified to independently interpret x-rays.

Hagemeyer, L. v. Timian Enterprises, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2016

“To that end, each prong of the collateral order doctrine must be clearly present before an order may be considered collateral.” Id. … -6- J-S36034-16 Cmwlth. 2007) (holding third element established only upon showing that issue involved will not be able to be raised on appeal, if appeal is delayed). 2

Hinkal, M. v. Pardoe, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2015

Super. 2006), is misplaced and in effect reshapes established contract law, I respectfully dissent. … the intent of the parties; 3) the language of contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is upon

Martin v. Soblotney

296 Pa. Super. 145 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 1982

Clearly the objection was not to any reference to plastic surgery by Appellee’s counsel, since his question contained no such reference. … (McKinney) provides for a qualified right to plead loss recoverable under the act.

Commonwealth v. Lee

2005 Pa. Super. 160 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2005

Admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused is discretion. Commonwealth v. … If the individual is serving a sentence for a qualifying violent crime, the individual has no real expectation of being released prior to serving 85% of his maximum sentence. ¶ 9 In my opinion, given the legal environment