Case law

Appeal of Gannon

428 Pa. Super. 349 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 1993

It is well established that the writing itself must be considered the best and controlling evidence of that question. Id. The testamentary writing actually admitted to probate clearly expresses Mrs. … The auditing judge noted that no personal representative had been appointed or qualified to act on behalf of the estate of Mr. Reice. See Adjudication of February 24, 1992 by Pawelec, J. .

Com. v. Homan, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2015

This clearly angered [Homan]. … We need not decide whether the pain Homan inflicted on H.B. here qualified as “extreme pain” as required by Douglass, however, since there -9- J-A12029-15 was clearly sufficient

Erie Insurance Exch. v. Montesano, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2022

The phrase is used to refine the term “resident” and qualify the phrase “lives with ‘you.’” Id. … The parties clearly sought to specifically define the term “resident;” indeed, the Policy covers individuals who reside outside of the insured’s home, including “unmarried, unemancipated children attending school full time

J.M. v. K.W.

164 A.3d 1260 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2017

Nevertheless, we found that the evidence adduced during the relocation hearing established that the proposed move constituted a relocation. … There still has not been a formal determination of the children’s best interest that would qualify as a “final” order. 4 Hence, the interim order was temporary in name only.

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.

Com. v. Sanmartin, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2025

entire Rule 2119(f) statement is set forth verbatim: The [t]rial [c]ourt abused its discretion in issuing a sentence in the upper level of the standard range without considering mitigating factors which qualifies … The Commonwealth asserts this statement is insufficient and does not establish a substantial question. See Appellee’s Brief, at 9-10. We agree.

Commonwealth v. Colon

2004 Pa. Super. 88 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2004

Supreme Court held that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is violated when a statement of a non-testifying co-defendant that clearly implicates the defendant is entered into evidence. … The issue is whether the testimony given at the aborted plea proceedings qualifies as the type of former testimony embraced by Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1).

Com. v. Flood, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2025

of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” and will not be overruled absent evidence of “manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly … Stauffer was not qualified because the analysis of the blood was done by a machine, and not her personally. Appellant’s Brief, at 19-20; N.T. Trial, 6/1/23, at 108-09.

In Re: Jackson, J. Appeal of: Townsend, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2017

We will reverse any decree based on palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable rules of law. … The rules regarding appellate standing are well established.

Commonwealth v. COHEN

203 Pa. Super. 34 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1964

The law on this subject is clearly set forth in Com. v. Wilcox, 56 Pa. … He said: “It would seem a reductio ad absurdum to contend that a criminal conspiracy can only be established by proof of legal acts.

Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.

261 Pa. Super. 118 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1978

-A- The requirement that malice must be proved was established by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). … Perhaps our liberties might survive without an independent established press. But the Founders doubted it, and, in the year 1974, I think we can all be thankful for their doubts.

Com. v. Branthafer, A.

315 A.3d 113 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2024

To qualify as a “watershed rule,” “a new rule must itself constitute a previously unrecognized bedrock procedural element that is essential to the fairness of a proceeding.” Whorton v. … Rather, it has long-been established that Appellant has a rule-based right to effective PCRA counsel.

Com. v. Rodriguez, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2026

.] … The videos clearly illustrate an unprovoked assault where Appellant runs toward the Victim, takes at least two steps, winds up his right arm and hand and strikes the Victim in the face with a closed … Fraley is board certified in emergency medicine and was qualified as an expert in emergency medicine. Dr.

Com. v. Mickelson, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2014

Appellant contends the statement did not qualify as an exception to the rule against hearsay. … Ziv opined Appellant qualified as an SVP. After hearing the testimony of a qualified expert, who stated the grounds for her opinions, the court resolved Appellant’s SVP status.

Com. v. Antill, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2019

More importantly, the trial court properly instructed the jury that Antill was presumed innocent until the Commonwealth established, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of every crime charged. … Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or

In Re: Wallace, J., Appeal of: Com. of PA

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2020

However, the statute clearly provides that a private detective business involves “any” one of the listed activities. 22 P.S. § 12(b). … The Commonwealth asserts that the sole member of Steadfast, Wallace, was not qualified for a license in his individual capacity, and therefore, Steadfast was not qualified for a license.

Newell v. Montana West, Inc.

2017 Pa. Super. 15 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2017

The relationship between the parties therefore does not clearly point toward establishment of a new duty. … Although the City had governmental immunity, the Court in both Scarborough and Gardner did not base its decisions on that fact.

Dietz v. Chase Home Finance, LLC

2012 Pa. Super. 79 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2012

Turning to the present matter, contrary to the Dietzes’ argument, Sites established that Section 1681h(e) applies to “furnishers *890 of information.” … Both parties do not deny that Chase qualifies solely as a “furnisher of information” based on the facts of the case.

Com. v. Zerby, J., III

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2015

plea is established. … the plea is established.

T.L.B. o/b/o B.B.M. v. B.M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2025

A petitioner is not required to establish abuse occurred beyond a reasonable doubt, but only to establish it by a preponderance of the evidence. … But clearly intent is an important element in the equation. . . .