Case law

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

Britcher, M. v. Erie Insurance Company

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2025

Such a contention requires us to employ the following standard of review: The Superior Court’s standard for reviewing the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court clearly and … that this later testing provides the “final say,” as a matter of law, as to the issue of whether damages were ultimately established at trial.

Phillips, S. v. Gilbert, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2020

Rothman both were able to testify that in their opinion this outcome would not sustain a cap or tooth or prosthetic being added to the abutment, that's a bad result, clearly a bad result. ... … But the bottom line is, even if it is a bad result, that does not establish negligence. Id. p. 61.

Steltz, C. v. Meyers, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2020

Steltz as a fact witness, and was never qualified as an expert.6 See Pa.R.E. 702. … Moreover, he did so in a way that was clearly calculated to buttress Dr. Read’s credibility and diminish Dr. Zoga’s credibility.

Com. v. Harris, V.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2015

These testimonial notes clearly show statements inconsistent with the statements written in the affidavit of probable cause. … The balancing ofa11 factors should be weighed in favor of the Commonwealth's qualified privilege.

Com. v. Baxter, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2016

the notes of [the witness]’s previous testimony read to the jury was based on a reassessment of its worth and a conclusion that it was of little or no value in the posture of this case, then that decision clearly … Greenberg testified that he chose not to cross- examine Marcelis as to the immunity agreement because he felt that it might actually bolster her credibility with the jury, both by further establishing the likelihood

Com. v. Little, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2025

The trial court excluded the statements taking ownership of the drugs, rejecting Little’s arguments that the statements qualified as statements against his penal interest. … See Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 375 (holding that, to establish prejudice relative to a suppression motion, the litigant must establish that the “Fourth Amendment ____________________________________________ 6 The Commonwealth

Com. v. Lange, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2024

David Zehrung, was qualified as an expert in clinical psychology. N.T. 12/12/2022, p. 155-157. Dr. … Here, the jury clearly believed the Commonwealth’s evidence and found that Appellant’s intoxication did not negate his specific intent to kill. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury. See id.

Commonwealth v. Miller

426 Pa. Super. 410 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1993

Heilman, who is qualified only as a pathologist, to interpret medical reports relating to the development of infants, and to offer opinions relating to that development? Appellant’s Brief at p. 3. … As in Smith, the medical examiner in the present case clearly testified that the cause of the infants’ deaths was dehydration and malnutrition.

Commonwealth v. Pander

2014 Pa. Super. 201 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2014

Was their identification positive or was it qualified by any hedging or inconsistencies? During the course of this case did the witness identify anyone else as the perpetrator? … conclusively establishes that A not to present additional witnesses.

Musika, J. v. Gopez, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2025

The requirement of a physical injury has therefore clearly been established. … Cote is an oncologist, he was not qualified to offer a standard of care opinion regarding the performance of Dr. Gopez, who is a neurosurgeon. Trial Court Opinion, 3/29/23, at 15.

Commonwealth v. Foster

425 Pa. Super. 61 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1993

The court then stated that, because the notes were not properly admitted into evidence, they could not qualify as an exhibit and were thus improperly sent out with the jury as an aid in deliberations. … Clearly this same possibility of overemphasis also exists when the jury requests to review a videotaped reenactment of the crimes charged — a re-enactment which by both word and visible actions constitutes a confession.

Com. v. Cunningham, D.

287 A.3d 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2022

Historically, Pennsylvania courts have held the smell of marijuana alone was sufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. … 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. Bowen, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2016

We note that the “[a]dmission 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 its discretion.” Commonwealth v. … However, we agree with the Commonwealth’s argument at trial3 that this statement qualifies as an exception to the rule against hearsay.

Commonwealth v. Stutler

2009 Pa. Super. 30 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2009

of first impression. 6 *599 ¶ 13 Our standard of review, however, is well settled: 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 … “applies only to statements made to attorneys[,] ... the rule could extend to a law enforcement officer acting as an authorized agent for the prosecuting attorney, [if] the defendant seeking to exclude the statement ... establishes

Com. v. Murray, B

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2021

Peterkin, 722 A2d 638 (Pa. 1998), and/or [Peterson, supra] the PCRA filed by Appellant pro se on January 10, 1997, qualify as the first validly filed postconviction collateral petition, if the PCHA court lacked … By employing the past tense in writing this provision, the legislature clearly intended that the right was already recognized at the time the petition was filed. Reid, supra at 1154 (quoting Commonwealth v.

Estate of: Fabian, Stella, Appeal of: Krepicz, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2021

This was clearly a misapplication of the law. … Where the rules of law on which the Orphans’ Court relied are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court’s decree.

Old Guard Insurance v. Houck

2002 Pa. Super. 161 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2002

The policy included UIM coverage, and Windrim qualified as an insured under the policy because he was a relative living with his mother. … Co., 551 Pa. 558 , 711 A.2d 1006 (1998), a unanimous court squarely addressed the validity of the household exclusion outside the framework of analysis established in Marroquin and Paylor.

Com. v. Rugg, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2015

Clearly, Defendant was acting as an "other person supervising the welfare of a child." … Defendant's conviction on, inter alia, Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse qualifies him for SVP assessment under the statute.