Case law

Com. v. Delarosa, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2024

Petitioner was was clearly clearly capable capable of of obtaining … To qualify requirement.

Drohan v. Sorbus, Inc.

401 Pa. Super. 29 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1990

In other words, “classic overt conspiracy acts” could qualify as predicate acts for § 1962(d) even if those acts did not in themselves constitute racketeering activity. Id. at 1169. … Appellant had not alleged the latter exception, the trial court held, and his discharge did not threaten any clearly discernible public policy. *46 Appellant contends on appeal that he raised both exceptions, public policy

Com. v. Gaines, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 2018

Although we acknowledged the petitioner’s equitable arguments pertaining to counsel’s ultimate decision to keep working with him only to fail to meet the 60-day deadline, we noted the “Supreme Court has clearly established … clearly placed the onus upon Appellant, himself, to file a second PCRA petition in a timely manner.

Spitzer v. Tucker

404 Pa. Super. 539 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1991

The appellate court will disturb a trial court's findings only when the judge has clearly abused his or her discretion. … Clearly, cost, as Ms. Spitzer admitted, has always been a factor for Mr. Tucker.

Com. v. Fleck, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2016

-9- J-A09036-16 prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly erroneous. Commonwealth v. Pugh, 101 A.3d 820, 822 (Pa. … Belloto as an expert in toxicology because “there was not an adequate basis establishing his credentials[.]” (Trial Ct. Op., 5/15/15, at 8). At trial, Dr.

Com. v. Cannon, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2020

demonstration that the [trial] court's decision was a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support from the evidence or the record so as to be clearly … His testimony established that either Pelch or [Appellant] would create the payroll record by submitting employee hours to [Paychex].

Hailey, L. v. Baribault, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2020

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … There is nothing in the Lease evidencing Bancroft’s specific agreement to waive the immunity from joinder afforded employers under the Workers’ Compensation Act and indemnify the Baribaults for Mr.

Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc.

2013 Pa. Super. 232 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2013

It is equally established that a loss of consortium claim remains a separate and distinct cause of action.” Darr Construction Co. v. … It submitted an amicus curiae brief because the results of this appeal will "clearly and substantially impact PDI's members.” Id.

Com. v. Combs, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2024

Floyd, to whom the Commonwealth granted immunity, testified at trial that he understood [Blackston]’s statement to mean that the driver of the truck was the eyewitness to Mr. Freeman’s murder. … The court was also clearly cognizant of the jury’s finding that Appellant was less culpable than the co-defendants, which is shown by a sentence that gives Appellant hope of parole during his lifetime.

Philadelphia Transportation Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

155 Pa. Super. 9 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1943

Ct. 527 ) in an amount, but only in such amount as is clearly established by the evidence. The problem here is not as complex as in e. g., Peoples Nat. Gas Co. v. Pa. P. U. C., 153 Pa. … That these witneses are well qualified, is conceded.

Com. v. Bailey, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2016

Our jurisdiction over a claim regarding the discretionary aspects of sentence must be established as follows: We conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a … Nonetheless, even if we were to determine that Appellant’s claim qualifies as a substantial question, we would find no merit to the underlying allegation.

Com. v. Cook, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2021

A claim based on newly discovered facts qualifies for an exception to the PCRA’s time bar. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). … It therefore cannot qualify as a newly discovered fact. See id.

In the Int. of: T.F., Appeal of: D.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2024

Prima facie evidence is not the standard that establishes the child has been abused, which must be established by clear and convincing evidence; it is the standard by which the court … The Legislature has determined that the likelihood clearly established abuse has occurred, other than at the hands of the custodian, is so small that prima facie evidence the custodian

Commonwealth v. Cole

2017 Pa. Super. 211 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2017

Clearly, in both states, an order issued to live-track a cell phone requires a minimum showing of probable cause. … Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement does not appear to challenge whether the evidence in question qualified as an exception to Rule 404(b)(1) as set forth under the first sentence of Rule 404(b)(2) (“This evidence may be admissible

In the Int. of: G.E., Appeal of: T.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2025

The sixth error in Mother’s Rule 1925(2)(i) statement, however, clearly asserts error “in admitting and relying upon hearsay as competent evidence in the termination proceedings.” … Agency, as the proponent of this evidence, was required to establish a proper basis for its admission. See Pa.R.E. 103)(a), 104(a).

In the Interest of: M.E., Appeal of: J.E.E.

2022 Pa. Super. 157 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2022

[M.R.E.] is in serious condition, is admitted to the [PICU], and this qualifies as a Near Fatality from Injuries due to Child Abuse under Pennsylvania Law.[4] Given the history of prior bruising and an … Also, while some of her injuries may not have been obvious to a non-offending parent, the bruising on her face, which existed prior to Monday morning, clearly was. Id. at 158. As Dr.

Com. v. Spangler, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2014

Section 7508 clearly limits the sentencing court’s discretion in imposing sentence; the court is mandated to impose certain minimum sentences if specific circumstances are met. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508. … However, even accepting this proposition at face value, it is far from establishing that the mandatory seven-year sentence at issue here offends evolving standards of decency or a balanced sense of justice.

Swank, M. v. Rabkin Dermatopathology

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2025

trial court’s opinion in this regard is flawed. ____________________________________________ 3 While this contention is provided in the portion of the trial court’s argument regarding the Fair Share Act, the court clearly … Without such expert testimony, a prima facie case of medical negligence against the Forefront Defendants could not have been established.

In Re: P.G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2023

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (formatting altered).5 Appellant argues that Hospital failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, Appellant either acted in a manner that established a reasonable probability … First, the petitioner, at a hearing, must “reestablish” the patient’s prior conduct, which qualified as a clear and present danger to himself, to others, or both, “in fact occurred[,]” and second, the petitioner must establish

Com. v. Zawierucha, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2015

The jury was inflamed by the three (3) Commonwealth witnesses that were granted immunity in this matter. … You have the qualified right to bail under Pa. R. Crim. P. 521(b) [Pa. R. Crim. P. 720(4)(d)]. Pursuant to Pa. R. Crim.