Case law

Com. v. Torres, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2018

Appellant contends that Light “clearly states ‘psychiatric testimony should be admissible as to . . . the subjective element of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the occurrence.’” … Key was not qualified as an expert to testify as a psychiatric expert regarding [Appellant’s] subjective state of mind. As he was not qualified as an expert, Mr.

Com. v. Bailey, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2026

It is well settled that “claims of ineffective assistance of counsel do not automatically qualify pursuant to the exceptions to the one-year time limitation provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)–(iii).” … We emphasize that a party challenging a statute must meet the high burden of demonstrating that the statute clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution. Id. (citations omitted).

Com. v. McGhee, R.

2020 Pa. Super. 80 · 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.

Com. v. Saita, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2015

evidence presented· by the Commonwealth, through corroborated witness testimony and expert testimony evidence, clearly established each and every element of each of the offense. … Clearly, this! exception clearly does not apply.

Theobald, G. v. R.H. Kuhn Company

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2017

to claims or suits, 2) PNC and Compass were bound by the 2010 Agreement, 3) PNC and Compass' failure to pay deferred compensation established conversion of those funds, and 4) Compass ''employed" Theobald and is therefore … More generally, receivers are provided immunity as "appointive judicial officers." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 102.

Com. v. Brown, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2016

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the evidence established the following. … (2) The judge shall not dismiss the information on the ground that a grand juror was not legally qualified if the record shows that at least 12 qualified jurors concurred in the indictment.

Com. v. McLean, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2018

-6- J-S32019-18 establishing the [Victim’s] injuries.” Id. at 14. … If the photograph is inflammatory, the trial court must decide whether or not the photographs are of such essential evidentiary value that their need clearly outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the

In Re: C.B. Appeal of: C.I.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2024

He suffers from a rare form of lupus, which has severely compromised his immune system. See id. at 4-5. Unfortunately, C.B.’s health has deteriorated significantly during these proceedings. … See Mother’s Brief at 15 (“The trial court failed to consider the potential release that Mother could qualify for which could allow Mother to be in a position to complete her goals and reunify with C.B.”).

Zimmerman, W. v. Zimmerman, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2021

Defendants point out that Kerstetter was not qualified as an expert. Id. at 12. … Plaintiffs further assert that the evidence established the total acreage of the Property. Id. at 10-11.

Com. v. Foschini, M.A., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2021

Instantly, we agree with the PCRA court that Appellant’s second PCRA petition was untimely and did not qualify for a timeliness exception. … -8- J-S44024-20 We acknowledge that the procedures to enforce a first-time PCRA petitioner’s right to counsel are not clearly established.9 However, absent an abandonment

In Re: L.J.J., Appeal of: H.A.E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2021

Section 5518 governs the evidentiary burden for a finding of incapacity: To establish incapacity, the petitioner must present testimony, in person or by deposition from individuals qualified by training … Marion believed that such an intervention would allow the [GAL] to ascertain [L.J.J.’s] actual desires, free from the clearly conflicted influence of her granddaughters. . . . Dr.

Com. v. Rush, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2019

Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Kloiber[4] instruction where Deputy John Herb did not have a good opportunity to view the suspect and his identification was qualified by … Considering the record in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence was sufficient to establish that Deputy Herb (1) was in a position to observe Appellant clearly and was positive as to Appellant’s identity

Miller, R. v. Bunting, R.

2025 Pa. Super. 80 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2025

Consequently, the plaintiffs argued that the deed to the defendant clearly conveyed only the surface estate. Id. … The chain of title related to the Property clearly shows a split into two complete fee simple estates in 1949.

Com. v. Saguilan, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2026

Ziv’s generalized testimony regarding victim’s responses to sexual assault was clearly admissible under Section 5920. Next, Saguilan takes issue with a portion of Dr. Ziv’s testimony on cross- examination. … [T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. ...

Smith, M. v. O'Brien, T.

2024 Pa. Super. 170 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2024

It is well established that “discovery orders rejecting claims of privilege and requiring disclosure constitute collateral orders that are immediately appealable under Rule 313.” Commonwealth v. … As this Court has opined, the privilege, “with its underlying goal of protecting and promoting marital harmony, obviously qualifies” as a right too important to be denied review.

Com. v. Lites, B.

234 A.3d 806 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2020

We then addressed the sole challenge raised in the Anders brief, which was that the victim “clearly had difficulty recalling numerous facts about the alleged attack [and that] counsel for the Commonwealth and the judge … The standard of review follows: The scope and standard of review applied to determine the legality of a sentence are well established.

Com. v. Simmons, D.

262 A.3d 512 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2021

Notwithstanding the primacy of the plain meaning doctrine as best [representation] of legislative intent, the rules of construction offer several important qualifying precepts. … (5) To attend or reside in a facility established for the instruction, recreation, or residence of persons on probation.

Com. v. Marte, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2015

To qualify as an excited utterance, a statement must be a spontaneous declaration by a person who has suddenly been “made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by some unexpected and shocking occurrence, which that … Therefore, these statements clearly fit the excited utterance exception and the trial court properly admitted them as evidence. Finally, Marte claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Rosamilia, A. v. Alaska Air Cargo

2025 Pa. Super. 193 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 2025

Fulton explained the log entry meant there was a dangerous good in King Salmon, and the agents in King Salmon were not qualified to accept or handle dangerous goods outbound. Id. at 12. … appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a showing of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly

Com. v. Hagleston, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2022

In other words, there is no claim that the trial court would not have qualified Dr. … We therefore conclude that the PCRA court’s determination that Appellant did not establish prejudice on his second ineffective assistance of counsel claim is supported by the record and free of legal error.