Case law

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.

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)

Glenn Distributors Corp. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2015

The standard of our review of an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 1035.2 is well established. … Super. 2002) (“‘Course of dealing’ ‘may supplement or qualify terms of an agreement,’ 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 1205(c), whereas ‘course of performance’ may be used only to interpret a contract.”).

Com. v. GP

765 A.2d 363 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2000

This process was clearly delineated in Commonwealth v. Arnold, 356 Pa.Super. 343 , 514 A.2d 890 (1986), which interpreted the identical predecessor to section 6381, 11 P.S. 2222, Hearings and Evidence, (2). … The courts, nevertheless, determined that the information provided had led to the establishment of a sufficient time frame for the offenses.

Com. v. Salcedo, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2015

Therein, Salcedo largely contended that his ongoing incarceration on an ICE detainer qualified as incarceration under the PCRA, entitling him to seek relief thereunder. … - 10 - J-S56028-14 relieve him of the burden of pleading at a minimum the substantive basis for such relief sufficiently clearly to persuade this court that remanding the

Com. v. Potter, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2024

Id. at 1258-59 (concluding “the statements of [] [W]ife do not qualify as an excited utterance and the trial court abused its discretion by ruling otherwise.”). … According to Appellant, “the function of the statements … about [the complainant’s] alleged domestic assault were clearly to prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” Id. at 24.

Commonwealth v. Wright

2004 Pa. Super. 484 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2004

sustain its burden to prove this accomplice theory the Commonwealth was required to demonstrate that appellants were present, that appellants were, in concert with others, shooting at the armored vehicle with a mens rea that qualified … Although the record supports appellant’s claim that the testimony of various witnesses was inconsistent, and even clearly contradictory in certain respects, it is not the function of this Court to resolve inconsistencies

Com. v. Wetzel, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 24, 2014

However, “[i]t is well established … that expertise can be acquired through occupational experience as well as by scientific study.” Commonwealth v. … Nevertheless, counsel for both the defense and the Commonwealth is permitted to discuss the law in closing arguments “as long as he[ or she] - 15 - J-S34003-14 states the law clearly

Com. v. Weaver, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2015

Clearly, Weaver’s 1997 petition does not meet the one-year timeliness requirement. … Weaver’s 1997 petition does not qualify as his 1997 petition counts as his second, due to his previous PCHA petition. See id., at 1262 (Pa.

In Re: Relinquishment of: T.B., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2021

Taylor’s disputed testimony was clearly hearsay, as it consisted of out-of-court statements from the Agency’s files and from Ms. Taylor’s conversations with other caseworkers. … [The agency] did not present any witness in support of the exhibits’ admission, let alone “the custodian or other qualified witness.”

Com. v. Kelly, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2020

After being qualified as such, he testified regarding the twelve[-]step process to determine if a person is capable of safely operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance … [Subsequently], Kelly was sentenced on the D.U.I. charge to a period of six (6) months in the County Intermediate Punishment Program with sixteen (16) days in a Qualified Restrictive Intermediate Punishment

Nationwide v. Schlick, J. Appeal of: Bulger, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2014

Under the Policy, the nature of the act triggering the exclusion is not otherwise qualified. … clearly exclude coverage for Jon R. and Denise L. based on their son’s acts.

Com. v. Newkirk, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2020

The evidence clearly established that the Victim called the police during the physical altercation with Appellant. N.T. Trial, 4/16/18, at 5. No one else was present when the police came. Id. at 4-5. … This testimony is clearly sufficient to establish that the Victim’s statements were made close in time to the physical altercation, which constitutes a startling event.

Velesaris, K. v. Oleg Leontiev, MD.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2023

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 … Butler was certainly qualified to render an expert opinion regarding the detection and progression of [Kelly]’s breast cancer, she was simply not qualified to provide an opinion on the management and treatment

Com. v. McCarthy, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2016

He maintains that Appellant’s tussle with Victim over Victim’s firearm did not constitute a threat that would qualify as provoking or escalating the altercation that led to the offense. … The act sufficient for third degree is still a purposeful one, committed with malice, which results in death—clearly, one can conspire to such an intentional act. Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Washington

438 Pa. Super. 131 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1994

However, "one of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent." Schneckloth v. … In such a situation, since the evidence is clearly insufficient, the suppression court has no reason, or need, to balance the evidence before it against the government's privilege. Commonwealth v.

Lane, A. v. CBS Broadcasting

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2015

We will reverse the resulting order only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. Grimminger v. … That is clearly the case here.

Clark, S. & v. v. Fritz, M. & S., and Fritz, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 2016

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 … Steel City Piping Co., 263 A.2d 881 (Pa. 1970) (practical experience may, in proper case, suffice to qualify witness as expert).

Com. v. Andrew, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2025

While some of [Appellant]’s features, such as his tattoos, a facial mole, and hairline, were obscured in the video compilation, Detective Kert Wilson, who was qualified at trial as an expert in video recovery … McKiver was incredible, it is well-established that credibility determinations are solely within the province of the factfinder, and a court may not reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that