Case law

In the Int. of: J.L., Appeal of: J.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2019

Therefore, the text does not refer merely to the seven-day time limitation established by subsection 6341 (a) itself, but all four of the time limitations established by section 6341. … . § 634l(b) (establishing two additional time limitations for delinquency proceedings); 42 Pa.C.S. § 634l(c) (establishing time limitation at issue}. 21 prejudice, bias, or ill-will

Com. v. Malik, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2024

Further, we establish that “mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish guilt.” Commonwealth v. Wagaman, 627 A.2d 735, 737 (Pa. Super. 1993). … When a case involves a CI, “[t]he Commonwealth retains a qualified privilege not to disclose an informant’s identity.” Commonwealth v. Withrow, 932 A.2d 138, 140-41 (Pa. Super. 2007).

OMalley, K. v. Isquierdo, D.

2025 Pa. Super. 203 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2025

In turning to Section 5421(a)(3), the trial court correctly points out that Brazil qualifies as the child’s home state under the plain text of the UCCJEA. See 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5402, 5405(a). … the illogical result that no state or country has jurisdiction to consider the custody issues because Brazil is the only state or country that has jurisdiction as the child’s home state under the UCCJEA, but Brazil has clearly

Com. v. Farley, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2014

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … As the purpose of the statue is clearly designed to protect and promote public safety, our review must be rational basis.

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.

Assoc. of Chapman Lake v. Long, E. & A.

253 A.3d 1210 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2021

- 14 - J-A29017-20 Next, the Associates claim the language of the Lee documents “clearly qualifies and limits the use of water.” Associates Brief at 11. … This was a specific, clearly limited grant of water rights. Miller could do two things under his deed – boat and fish.

Com. v. Lecuyer, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2021

Jones, 876 A.2d 380, 385 (Pa. 2005) (“if a petitioner raises allegations, which, even if accepted as true, do not establish the underlying claim . . . , he or she will have failed to establish the … ], the voluntariness of the plea is established.

Com. v. Shreiner, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2026

because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly … -5- J-A07026-26 condition, which his physician described as treatable with dialysis, qualifies as terminal” and that Appellant’s “records directly refute his claim that he

Burke, C. v. Kubicek, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2021

A small group of third parties is insufficient to establish publication. See Vogel v. W. T. Grant Co., 327 A.2d 133, 137-38 (Pa. 1974). … The Pet Owners do not allege that any third parties overheard this exchange, so it was clearly not disseminated to the degree necessary to qualify as a publication.

Com. v. Stufflet, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2016

Namely, the petitioner must establish that: 1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown and 2) could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence. … Clearly, all of the incidents of possible brain injury occurred more than a decade before his plea in 2001; all of the incidents were known to Appellant since 1988, at the latest.

In the Int. of: S.K., Appeal of: Chester Dept. C&Y

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2024

Legal and physical custody of S.K. was to remain with Guardian [A.M.] and a visitation schedule with Maternal Grandmother was established. … To invoke the collateral order doctrine, each of the three prongs identified in the rule’s definition must be clearly satisfied.

Com. v. Piper, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2021

However, as we find that Wife’s declarations qualify for the excited utterance exception, we need not address whether they would also qualify for this alternative exception. … And, the Commonwealth did decline to extend immunity to Defendant's wife for whatever testimony she may have offered had she not invoked her privilege.”

Amres Corp v. Ayzenberg, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2024

In determining the intent of the parties to a written agreement, the court looks to what they have clearly expressed, for the law does not assume that the language of the contract was … Thus, “the import of the Act is to require that the basic integrity of the record-keeping is established,” and “as long as someone in the organization has personally observed the event recorded, the evidence should be

Com. v. Platt, L

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2020

Failure to establish one prong obviates the need to analyze the remaining ones. See id. … Furthermore, “at no point during the conversations did Foley explicitly state what portions of her trial testimony were false nor did she clearly indicate [Platt] was innocent.”

Goldstein v. Goldstein

354 Pa. Super. 490 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1986

Platek, 309 Pa.Super 16, 454 A.2d 1059 (1982), after determining that certain tort settlement proceeds constituted “marital” property, we held that the court’s power to direct a partition of property is qualified by its duty … To allow such a result to occur clearly would not work to effectuate the “economic justice” contemplated by the code. 23 Pa.C.S. § 102(a)(6).

Commonwealth v. Kearns

2006 Pa. Super. 244 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2006

It is equally clear that such facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. … Thus, Kleinicke is clearly distinguishable.

Com. v. Rabelow, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2016

Agent Templinski established that American Comfort sold 245 of the contracts. … Appellant objected to the following specific statements on the grounds that the testifying witness was not qualified as an expert.

Commonwealth v. Henkel

2014 Pa. Super. 75 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2014

In exchange for immunity from prosecution, Matthew became a cooperating witness and showed police where he and Elias threw Jones’ body from the bridge in Ohio. … established federal law?

Com. v. Harshman, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2015

We again found that Kohr was entitled to blanket immunity from defense counsel’s questioning. … [and] none of the proffered evidence qualified for the statement against interest exception.” (Harshman, 1644 MDA 2010, at 8) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Com. v. Leisure, J., II

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2026

____________________________________________ 1 While Leisure stated that this was an “amended petition” the record clearly establishes that his prior appeal had been dismissed, and therefore there was no pending petition … This generalized claim does not overcome the fact that Leisure’s third PCRA petition is clearly untimely.