Case law

Levy, C. v. Johnson, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2016

Johnson's representation that he was qualified and had the requisite knowledge to perform her home inspection, when in fact Mr. … engagement to perform a home inspection or to prepare a home inspection report in which the employment itself or the fee payable for the inspection is contingent upon the conclusions in the report, pre-established

Com. v. Valentine, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2016

Appellant's intent in this threat was clearly to intimidate and silence the girls so they would not tell anyone about the sexual assault. … In the instant case, Appellant was convicted of multiple offenses which qualify under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.12, supra.

Com. v. Nicoloudakis, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2026

Although Appellant eventually established his in forma pauperis status, he does not challenge the PCRA court’s decision regarding counsel. … Would [A]ppellant[’]s medical documentation (denied admission at trial) have clearly established that [A]ppellant suffers from chronic insomnia, sleep apnea and possible structural defect

Com. v. Hooper, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 2015

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Appellant has clearly forfeited his right to counsel under - 11 - J-A08031-15 Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s determination that he had forfeited his right to counsel

Commonwealth v. Harris

2009 Pa. Super. 160 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2009

We recognize that our trial judges are “honorable, fair and competent,” and *392 although we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside … Tedford, 598 Pa. 639, 731 , 960 A.2d 1, 55-56 (2008) (“[I]t is the burden of the party requesting recusal ‘to produce evidence establishing bias, prejudice or unfairness which raises a substantial doubt as to the jurist’s

Commonwealth v. Baumgartner

206 A.3d 11 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2019

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … And I’m trying to qualify that anger.

Com. v. Brown, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2026

For the first time in his reply brief, Appellant states that the additionally summoned jurors were clearly “not a fair cross section of the community as required.” (See Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2). … In his fifth issue, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish his convictions for unlawful contact with a minor.

N.D.J. v. D.E.J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 2020

Clearly, Mother is unhappy that Father will not enroll the Children in the type of therapy that Mother believes that Father should enroll them in. … Indeed, Mother requests that we remand this case “with instructions to order the [C]hildren into therapy that is qualified to meet their needs[.]” (Id.)

Commonwealth v. Rickabaugh

706 A.2d 826 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1997

He was able to contemplate the situation and clearly communicate his thoughts and suggestions. … We note that, because Appellant qualifies as an "aggrieved person” as defined by the statute, he has standing to challenge whether Provenzano’s consent was lawful. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5702; Commonwealth v.

Com. v. McGhee, R.

230 A.3d 1277 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2020

B) By permitting a Philadelphia Police Detective to give expert opinion testimony as to the concept of “grooming” when that officer was never qualified to be an expert witness; C) … [Victim] clearly was unable to discern between right and wrong during her sexual relationship with Appellant.

Cigna v. Exec. Risk Indemnity and Nutmeg Ins.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2015

In affirming, the Second Circuit concluded, “Based on our review of the record as a whole, we conclude that the district court did not err—much less clearly err—in determining that the plaintiffs established “a basis for … qualify as fraudulent under Pennsylvania law.

Commonwealth v. Page

2009 Pa. Super. 20 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2009

Corporal Patterson testified: “I told him that if he would qualify for that and he is charged, a public defender would be appointed for him, and that would depend on his income.” … Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case or tends to support a reasonable inference regarding a material fact.

Com. v. Lewis, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2017

As such, he did not need to be qualified as an expert or 'author a report prior to testifying at trial. … It is well-established . that not all errors at trial entitle a defendant 10 a new trial. Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Hunter, A.

2026 Pa. Super. 48 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2026

We further determine Appellant established that trial counsel lacked a reasonable basis for not filing a motion to suppress. … Trooper Baney agreed that Carbaugh and B.D. were not liars, yet both had clearly testified Appellant was not one of the intruders.

Com. v. Kelley, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2016

Pa.R.A.P. 313.2 Our concern was informed by recent precedent: To establish whether a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds qualifies as a collateral order, trial courts must now, inter alia, … According to Appellant, “This was clearly not a manifest necessity.” Id. However, we need not address manifest necessity.

Commonwealth v. Batts

2015 Pa. Super. 187 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2015

.: The Majority Opinion thoroughly summarizes the factual and procedural history of the instant appeal, as well as the legal *47 framework established by Miller and the prior Pennsylvania Supreme. … However, [t]he grant of broad discretion does not render the sentence imposed immune to challenge in the appellate courts: [The] deference paid to the trial court does not necessitate a rubber stamped approval of the sentences

Com. v. Ceja, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2023

However, after reviewing photographs of the car, the suppression court found, “clearly that headlight is out on that side.” Id. at 32. … However, the Court clarified that possession of marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (CSA)4 “for those not qualified under the MMA.”

Com. v. Kemp, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2015

Notwithstanding the primacy of the plain meaning doctrine as best representative of legislative intent, the rules of construction offer several important qualifying precepts. … by law, such element is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 302(a) and (c)

Com. v. Coleman, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2018

He argues the PCRA court erred in finding he failed to establish an exception to the PCRA’s time-bar. We affirm. … Coleman’s petition is clearly facially untimely, as his previous petition was dismissed on timeliness grounds. See Commonwealth v. Coleman, 119 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super., filed 4/30/13) (unpublished memorandum).

Thomas v. Bache

155 Pa. Super. 224 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1944

occupation or business from that of defendant; (c) the work was that of a type usually performed by a specialist, and which defendant would not have been qualified to supervise or direct; (d) claimant furnished his own tools … It is clearly established that one does not have to have a contract for a lump sum or price in order to be an independent contractor. He may be paid by the hour, day, week or month for his services: Harrison v.