Case law

Commonwealth v. Hughes

2009 Pa. Super. 240 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2009

Money orders qualify as negotiable instruments pursuant to the Commercial Code. … It may also be used to purchase goods at a commercial establishment.

Com. v. Coles, L.

2025 Pa. Super. 258 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2025

To establish grounds for reasonable suspicion the officer must articulate specific observations which, in conjunction with reasonable inferences derived from these observations, led him reasonably to conclude … Also, the totality of the circumstances test does not limit our inquiry to an examination of only those facts that clearly indicate criminal conduct.

Com. v. Walker, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2024

It is well-established that “[a] trial court’s rulings on evidentiary questions are controlled by the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Commonwealth v. … There is no clearly defined limit as to the time sequence required for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance; instead, a fact-specific inquiry is made for each case to determine whether the utterance

Hosler, B. v. Tweedlie, G.

306 A.3d 361 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2023

For example, “justifiable reliance” is not an element for establishing a violation of RESDL. … parties, or some other established exception.”

Com. v. Dorsey, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2021

On May 30th of 2019, he pled guilty to indecent assault, and he admitted to having indecent assault with a 19-year old by forcible compulsion so that’s clearly a sexually violent offense. … Here, the trial court considered evidence that would tend to establish all statutory elements for an SVP classification.

Com. v. Kauffmann, G

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2014

Therefore, a police station that has any means for restricting the freedom of movement of arrestees qualifies as a local detention facility. … Specifically, we look to see if the trial court abused its discretion in committing an error of law or clearly erroneous fact. See Commonwealth v. Thomas, 904 A.2d 964, 970 (Pa. Super. 2006).

Sensenich, S. v. Morcos, E.

205 A.3d 375 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2019

A court may choose its own wording as long as the law is “clearly, adequately and accurately presented to the jury for its consideration.” Id. at 764. … In each of those cases, the trial court issued the instruction without qualifying its application in any manner. Thus, the jury, presumed to follow the court’s instructions, would have applied it to both claims.

Carlson, J. v. Graziano, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2026

Clearly, that classification is relevant to ascertaining the level of concern CYS placed on Appellants’ actions. … There are six essential prerequisites that a party must establish prior to obtaining preliminary injunctive relief.

U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Cannon, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2017

The record clearly establishes that Ms. Sandstrom was qualified to authenticate the business records offered by [Appellee]. … Sandstrom was clearly qualified to authenticate the business records produced by Appellee and that her testimony falls within the exception to hearsay.

Gongloff Contracting, L.L.C. v. L. Robert Kimball & Associates, Architects & Engineers, Inc.

2015 Pa. Super. 149 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2015

We will affirm the grant of the motion “only when the moving party’s right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt that the trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise.” … Second, Kimball clearly qualifies as a design profession “in the business of supplying information[.]” Id.; Am. Compl. at ¶ 5.

ACNB Bank v. Seneca Leandro View, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2026

failure to respond to qualified written requests prejudiced [Appellant’s] ability to address the alleged default.” … -7- J-S07016-26 Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the

Est. of: Krappa, L. v. Lyons, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2019

evaluations, opinions or other actions of such committee or any members thereof: Provided, however, That information, documents or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune … The PRPA’s protections do not extend to the credentialing committee’s materials, because this entity does not qualify as a “review committee.” See Reginelli, 181 A.3d at 306.

In Re WH

25 A.3d 330 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2011

Mother also asserts that the juvenile court ignored due process protections our Supreme Court established in In re F.C. … As the order clearly permits Dr. Bukhari to prescribe medication for W.H.'

Shepherd v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC

2011 Pa. Super. 156 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2011

Appellee noted that there was a significant number of very qualified individuals looking for the same positions as he had been seeking. He delineated, “I am the purple squirrel” for the job at Carlex. Id. at 94. … Thus, Appellee clearly articulated that Pew’s insistence that it did not have to pay the only consideration, ie., the bench compensation, underlying the restrictive covenant rendered it unenforceable.

Commonwealth v. Bonner

2016 Pa. Super. 48 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2016

A sentencing guideline will not be declared unconstitutional “unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution[.]” Commonwealth v. … Dec. 21, 2015) in which it considered whether a juvenile delinquency adjudication qualifies as a “conviction” for purposes of grading within a particularized sentencing regime.

Est. of G.D. v. The Children's Hospital of Phila.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2025

It is well settled that “[t]he party asserting a privilege bears the burden -9- J-S21023-25 of producing facts establishing proper invocation of the privilege.” Id. … In so stating, this Court clarified and reaffirmed our decisional law “that holds when a request has been made that on its face seeks protected materials, and the responding party clearly sets forth facts that leave no

Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC

2010 Pa. Super. 74 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2010

We will reverse the resulting order only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. … This is interesting since the trial court clearly signaled prior to the Frye hearing its skepticism of the extrapolation technique employed by Dr. Maddox. .

Mirizio v. Joseph

2010 Pa. Super. 70 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2010

Ellwood claimed that these third party sales qualified as purchases under the parties’ agreement and that it properly received these rebates even though it was not using the ingots itself because it was entitled to reimbursement … Conversely, Joseph argues that the evidence at trial “clearly establishes that there was fraud in the inducement of the contract.” Brief for Appellees at 24.

Brannan v. Lankenau Hospital

254 Pa. Super. 352 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1978

Suppose a witness first says that A is true, and then later, either on cross-examination or in response to a question from the court, modifies or qualifies this statement, as for example by acknowledging certain weaknesses … If the evidence presented by the plaintiff is believed it seems to me to clearly establish negligence and proximate cause as to Dr. Clifton F. West, Jr. I would remove the non-suit as to Dr.

Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. American Nuclear Insurers

76 A.3d 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2013

There would in many instances be a conflict of interest on the insurance company’s part ... with the insurance company being ás much interested in establishing facts which would result in non-coverage as in establishing facts … Alternatively, the insured may decline the insurer’s tender of a qualified defense and furnish its own defense, either pro se or through independent counsel retained at the insured’s expense.