Case law

Com. v. Garth, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2016

The Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing the harmlessness of the error. … The following two requirements must be satisfied in order for a statement to qualify for the medical treatment exception: (1) the statement must be made for the purpose of receiving medical treatment; and (2) the statement

Palamar, J. v. Palamar, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2021

I disregarded this evidence as well, although Mother had not objected, because it was clearly hearsay. … She seems to believe that the fact that she did not violate any other laws meant that she was immune from a finding that she had committed “abuse” under the statue.

Johnson, B. v. Johnson, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2019

Absent fraud,[4] a sheriff’s return of service which is full and complete on its face is conclusive and immune from attack by extrinsic evidence.” … The law does not establish a specific time period within which a petition to open a judgment must be filed to qualify as timeliness.

Hankey, A. v. Hankey, J., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2018

Established Pennsylvania law states: When interpreting the language of a contract, the intention of the parties is a paramount consideration. … The PSA clearly states that Wife is entitled to 60% of Husband’s retirement benefit.

Commonwealth v. Teeter

2008 Pa. Super. 272 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2008

Specifically, the Commonwealth established at sentencing that the crime of PWID for which Teeter was convicted occurred within 500 feet of a long-standing designated school bus stop. … the underlying offense, Teeter concludes there was no school bus stop nearby to bring him under the statute. 6 ¶ 15 “A lawfully enacted statute commands a presumption of constitutionality and should be upheld unless it clearly

Estate of: Ratushny, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2014

On February 6, 2013, Thomas filed a petition to appoint and disqualify named executor, Emlen, was not qualified to serve in that capacity due to, inter alia residence and insurance thereon, and waste and mismanagement … Where the rules of law on which the court relied are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we In re Estate of Strahsmeier, 54 A.3d 359, 362-63 (Pa. Super. 2012).

In Re Griffin

456 Pa. Super. 440 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 1997

Clearly, by preventing such supervision, appellants placed the children at risk and thus adversely affected their best interests. … No expert testimony is necessary to establish that such a deprivation can be harmful. Nonetheless, the court had before it the testimony of Dr. Patricia A.

DeArmitt v. New York Life Insurance

2013 Pa. Super. 161 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2013

By virtue of the admission, no issue of fact could be established by further discovery or expert report. … For an averment to qualify as a judicial admission, it must be a clear and unequivocal admission of fact.

Hamilton v. Procon, Inc.

211 Pa. Super. 446 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1967

Whether he wears out sooner or later, and whether he has a pre-existing disease, which the work may aggravate, are not essential prerequisites to qualify him for compensation. … The fallacy of testing work-connection by a comparison of a man’s particular fatal exertion with his usual exertion is that, in many occupations, even the usual exertion is clearly capable of causing heart collapse.

Com. v. Schlier, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2020

As this Court has explained, “[t]he provisions of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104 are clearly disjunctive.” Commonwealth v. Karl, 476 A.2d 908, 911 (Pa. Super. 1984). … In contrast, a mere investigatory motive does not qualify a stop as a discharge of a public duty under § 5104. See id.

Commonwealth v. Thomas

2005 Pa. Super. 27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2005

Although a conviction must be based on “more than mere suspicion or conjecture, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty.” Commonwealth v. … Hackenberger further testified the girls were clearly the favored children. N.T. 7/17/03 at 579. Lastly, Mr. Hackenberger described certain occasions when both his children and Mother’s were at the office and Mr.

In the Interest of M.M.

439 Pa. Super. 307 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 1995

This rationale was clearly set forth in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Morreale v. … A proper foundation may be established with facts or testimony which suggest that the question is the result of more than mere speculation or guesswork.

Commonwealth v. Andrews

282 Pa. Super. 115 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1980

Robinson, 468 Pa. at 592-3 , 364 A.2d at 674 , the Supreme Court explained this qualified right to particular counsel: In Moore v. … Although the accused may personally elect to waive his right to a speedy trial, he clearly cannot be permitted to utilize his right to choose his own counsel so as unreasonably to clog the machinery of justice and hamper

Com. v. Joe-Murphy, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2021

McColgan, a board-certified child abuse pediatrician, clearly had both ____________________________________________ counsel objected to Dr. … As noted above, in order to establish an abuse of discretion, Joe-Murphy “must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality

Nelson, D. v. Airco Welders Supply

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2014

Each body, in its own sphere, is more qualified than this Court to embark upon change of such sweeping consequence. … reached a different conclusion, but requires . . . manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, 21 J-E02002-14 prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly

Commonwealth v. Ali

2015 Pa. Super. 45 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2015

Neither the authenticity nor the veracity of the laboratory report was established by an expert or other qualified witness. … However, whether that person could do so plainly was not what Ali sought to establish.

Com. v. Carter, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2025

- 15 - J-S02014-24 became aware of the dismissal of his collateral appeal, he did not qualify for an exception to the PCRA time bar. … This court looked [at] untainted trial evidence [that] establishes defendant’s guilt.

Com. v. Campbell, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2018

First, the· evidence clearly established that defendant was the sole demolition contractor and was in charge of the means and methods of demolition that led to the disaster. … N.T. 10/8/15 at 74. 19  It was also clearly established that the manner in which defendant demolished the Hoagie City building was directly contrary to established

Krajewski v. Gusoff

2012 Pa. Super. 166 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2012

Consistent with this standard, a false light claim can be established where true information is released if the information tends to imply falsehoods. Id. … Although honest utterance, even if inaccurate, may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech, it does not follow that the lie, knowingly and deliberately published * * * should enjoy a like immunity. * * *

Com. v. Goodman, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2024

charges of Contraband/Non- Controlled Substance, Distributing or Selling a Non-Controlled Substance, and Use of a Communication Facility, because the substance actually sprayed on the documents was DEET, which does not qualify … On this point, the trial court observes that the fact Appellant and Gaines failed to receive from their suppliers the contraband that they clearly conspired and worked to receive was not a defense to the conspiracy charge