Case law

Primavera v. Celotex Corp.

415 Pa. Super. 41 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 1992

The complained-of testimony fell well within this established exception and thus was admissible. … The report clearly was admitted to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein and to dispute the plaintiff’s claim against the doctor who allegedly caused her medical problems.

Com. v. Smith, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2021

Mere similarities between a defendant’s prior bad acts and the crimes for which he is being tried will not qualify for a Rule 404(b)(2) exception. … have committed the offense has not been prosecuted or convicted or has been - 20 - J-S27029-21 convicted of a different offense or degree of offense or has an immunity

Com. v. Caraballo, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2024

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Expert testimony is not necessary to establish impairment under subsection 3802(d)(2) where there exists other independent evidence of impairment. Id.

Com. v. Peterson, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2016

Nor can I imagine that the per curiam order intended such a result, given our well-established jurisprudence which requires otherwise when a sentencing scheme is upset. I further find Commonwealth v. … The instant matter is clearly distinguishable from Holz. Here the convictions for which Appellant had to be sentenced were subject to the same judgment of sentence and sentencing scheme.

B.C.S. v. T.S.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2015

In addition, Father alleged that Mother had refused to have the Children immunized due to “strong ethical objections.” Id. at ¶ 18. … Gris[o]lano clearly opined that changing [A.B.S.’s] school will not be in his best interest.

Cheltenham & Abington Sewerage Co. v. Public Service Commission

122 Pa. Super. 252 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1935

While the witness supporting the complainant was not as well qualified to express an opinion on this subject from an engineering standpoint as the respondent’s witness, a careful perusal of all the testimony convinces us … Since they have not the well established investment value of water, gas, electric and transportation companies, it is necessary to employ a broker to make a market for such securities.

Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Farmers National Bank of Claysville

2008 Pa. Super. 207 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2008

However, any “such relinquishment should not be implied in the absence of language clearly indicating the intention of the parties to that effect.” … “The habendum may enlarge, expound, qualify or vary the estate granted in the premises of the deed.” Id.

Com. v. Marberger, R.

2025 Pa. Super. 182 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2025

Marberger concedes that, although the troopers were qualified to provide lay testimony as to their observations of him on that evening, they could not identify, with any particularity, a controlled substance that he had … - 18 - J-S21041-25 precise thrust of his argument is unclear,13 the totality of the circumstances clearly demonstrates that: (1) the troopers, observing Marberger driving

Com. v. Glover, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2016

Our Supreme Court has clearly explained the plain feel doctrine as follows. … Appellant argues that, although the Commonwealth’s expert, Officer Burgess, testified that he believed the cocaine was possessed with intent to deliver, his basis was “a series of truisms that hardly qualify as

In the Int. of: D.R.-W., a Minor Appeal of: D.W.

227 A.3d 905 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2020

. § 2511 (a), where the evidence showed that Father substantially complied with [SCP] goals established by [DHS]. 3. … Adoption has been clearly established as the appropriate goal in the best interest of these Children. Trial Court Opinion, 5/16/19, at 29-30. We again discern no error of law or abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Prendes

2014 Pa. Super. 151 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2014

The board shall establish standards for evaluations and for evaluators conducting the assessments. … First, they establish that [Appellant] suffers from the “mental abnormality” of pedophilia.

Com. v. Giles, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2022

The [trial c]ourt erred when it allowed the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of the amount of money that the victim owed in medical bills to establish whether the injury qualified as “[s]erious bodily … Here, by contrast, the video evidence clearly established that Sales was in a position to witness the assault of which he was the victim.

Com. v. Simmons, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 2015

When reviewing a trial court’s evidentiary rulings, we note that, “the 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 … In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.

412 North Front Street Associates, LP v. Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C.

2016 Pa. Super. 266 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2016

In their May 3, 2011, reply to David Giles’ letter setting forth the balance of legal fees owed, Newman and Brownstein clearly and concisely said they “agreed” with Giles’ accounting. … Neither Appellants’ financial difficulties at the time nor their subsequent statement in reply to Giles that they reserved the right to review all submissions for payment qualified, in any way, their succinct and explicit

Com. v. Calloway, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2023

Pursuant to Rule 803(6), this Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Trooper Roberts qualified as a custodian for the PSP checklist. … Even if there had been, she was clearly available and subject to cross-examination and two rounds of re-cross-examination.

Commonwealth v. Roane

142 A.3d 80 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2016

S35002/16 may not rely on the burden-shifting paradigm established by Batson. … The “McMahon tape” was produced in 1987 and therein, Jack McMahon, a now-former Philadelphia County Assistant District Attorney, “makes a number of highly inflammatory comments implying that he regularly seeks to keep qualified

Omicron Systems, Inc. v. Weiner

2004 Pa. Super. 389 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2004

[establish, engage, own, manage, operate, join or control, participate or be connected with the establishment, ownership, management, operation, or control of, or be an employee, salesman, owner, partner, agent, director, … The testimony clearly indicated that companies do not know who their rivals are for any specific job.

Sprague v. Walter

441 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1995

The Act holds that: A record of an act, condition or event shall insofar as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodial or other qualified witness testifies the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity … The Pennsylvania standard clearly established by our Supreme Court appears to fully comport with the Alabama standard approved by the United States Supreme Court as satisfying the requirements of due process. See W.W.

Olson, D. v. State Auto Property and Casualty

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2020

Thus, by summarily stating that Bamber’s vehicle “clearly f[ell] into [C]ategory [9],” it implicitly found that the Chamber of Commerce did not own, hire, or borrow Bamber’s vehicle. … Thus, Bamber had to meet the definition provided in Section II (A)(1)(b) to qualify as an “insured.”

Commonwealth v. Kennedy

2016 Pa. Super. 273 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2016

which provides that: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness[’] perception; (b) helpful to clearly … law predecessor to Federal Rule of Evidence 701, Officer Davis’ testimony should be inadmissible in this case.13 We acknowledge prior case law from other jurisdictions that appears to require expert testimony to establish