Case law

Commonwealth v. Marconi

408 Pa. Super. 601 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1991

Our scope and standard of review under the circumstances are established. … Very clearly, the search in the instant case can not be justified under the Terry rationale or its progeny. See Commonwealth v. Luddy, 281 Pa.Super. 541 , 422 A.2d 601 (1980). See Pennsylvania v.

Com. v. McClure, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2014

In McClure’s brief, he admits that this Court already has held that Frye did not establish the sort of “new” and retroactive constitutional right that qualifies for the timeliness exception set forth in subsection 9545 … Consequently, we do not find that either decision is clearly erroneous or unworkable.

Com. v. Harshman, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2016

The 2015 panel agreed with Appellant’s first contention since the PCRA court admitted that it “again found that Kohr was entitled to blanket immunity from defense counsel’s questioning. … We disagree since it clearly was subsumed by the position presented in that statement that the PCRA court erred in failing to find that Kohr testified falsely under an undisclosed arrangement.

Bombar v. West American Insurance Co.

2007 Pa. Super. 222 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2007

It is well established that an insurer need only defend an insured in a claim if *87 the insurance contract provides coverage for a suit of that nature. … Cunitz was not qualified. We decline to become counsel for West American on appeal and will not develop this argument for it. See Pa.

Com. v. Reyes, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2021

[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts

Commonwealth v. Metts

2001 Pa. Super. 326 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2001

She was offered immunity by the Commonwealth for her truthful testimony. Id. at 138. She denied that she was testifying against her brother to pro *1001 tect her husband. Id. at 139. … The Trial Court clearly weighted the conflicting testimony in favor of the Commonwealth, and we will not disturb the its credibility determinations. See Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Ulen

414 Pa. Super. 502 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1992

This evidence was clearly sufficient to establish both appellant’s possession of cocaine and his attempt to deliver it to another. … Thus, an appellate court will reverse a trial court’s finding of no discrimination only if that finding is clearly erroneous.” ’ Commonwealth v.

Estate of C.W.

433 Pa. Super. 167 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1994

Although C.W. has never been pregnant, all the experts qualified to express an opinion on this subject agreed that there was no reason to believe that C.W. was incapable of reproduction. … Clearly there does not need to be a male residing in C.W.’s CLA for a man to be present there.

In Re GPR

851 A.2d 967 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2004

670, 677 (Pa.Super.2001), appeal denied, 568 Pa. 618 , 792 A.2d 1254 (2001). ¶ 8 The trial court's rendition of the facts, which we find are supported by the evidence presented, coupled with its credibility determinations clearly … In fact, Father admits that he was waiting until he was on parole to try to "re-establish" a relationship.

Lytle v. CitiFinancial Services, Inc.

2002 Pa. Super. 327 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2002

The clause so clearly favors the insurer over the claimant or insured that it is repugnant to notions of due process, equal protection, justice, and fair play. … evidence relevant to the Lytles’ argument that the costs associates with individual versus class-based litigation of their claim against CitiFinancial would, in light of the amount of their damages, result in continuing immunity

Commonwealth v. Africa

281 Pa. Super. 419 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1980

Although manifest necessity was clearly established for those defendants who had been identified during the testimony of Officer Armstrong, Phil Smith Africa and Gail Sims Africa were arguably not prejudiced even if the trial … The majority's narrow focus on the judge's initial expressions of reservation ignore the judge's final resolution of a question which he was best qualified to answer.

Com. v. Miller, R., III.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2025

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth [need] not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Clearly, they found [her] testimony [] to be credible. [The victim] testified in detail how over a period of years [] Appellant would make comments to her and touch her inappropriately.

Chung, J. v. Williams-Foxworth, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2026

court recognizes the following: following: Pennsylvania Pennsylvania has has aa well-established … qualified as permissive.

Grothey, C. v. Grothey, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2016

Counsel for Wife shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which transfers the sum to Wife”. … It is well- established that the paramount goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the parties’ intent.

Com. v. Miller, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2026

Trooper Geoghan noted that the vehicle was replete with clearly-visible knives, and as Appellant refused to show the Trooper his hands, Appellant was tased. Id. at 54. … This testimony is clearly permissible. Further, Appellant’s reliance on Commonwealth v. Yocolano, 169 A.3d 47 (Pa. Super. 2017) is utterly inapposite.

Com. v. Robinson, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2018

This is not sufficient to establish the § 9545(b)(1)(iii) timeliness exception. … Clearly, the court imposed a sentence of life in prison. Just as clearly, the mere fact that the DOC does not currently possess a copy of the order imposing sentence does not render Robinson’s detention illegal.

Cole, M. v. Janoski, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2023

This is clearly documented in Dr. Wallace’s chart notations. Dr. … The jury never got to causation or to the qualifying effect of [Mr. Cole’s] conduct . . .. Trial Court Opinion, 10/24/22, at 20-21.

Hyrcza v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc.

2009 Pa. Super. 119 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2009

After review of the record, however, we conclude that these statements were made in the context of other statements which clearly singled out Dr. … The evidence established that Dr. Artz, Dr. Morris and Dr. Hebron all understood the risk.

Com. v. Brensinger, R.

2019 Pa. Super. 265 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2019

It cannot establish that he had agreed to represent Brensinger at that time. … “As a threshold matter, a statute is presumed to be constitutional and will only be invalidated as unconstitutional if it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates constitutional rights.”

PNC Bank, N.A. v. Seneca Leandro View, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2026

loan information and potentially established affirmative defenses and statutory claims under 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)? … This QWR clearly identified SLV, referenced the loan and [Mortgaged Premises], stated [that] SLV disputed the amount alleged due in PNC’s complaint, and requested specific, itemized information