Case law

Com. v. Bologna, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2023

Herein, Gorski’s testimony clearly contradicted the video evidence regarding the part of the body where that the -8- J-A26011-22 baton made contact. … Cornish, 589 A.2d 718, 721 (Pa.Super. 1991) (finding fireplace poker qualified as a deadly weapon after the defendant repeatedly struck the victim with it during a robbery, inflicting serious bodily injury).

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. Wilson, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2023

In the case sub judice, Appellant does not contest Child’s qualifying age under the statute or the reliability of her statements. … The verdict was clearly against the weight of the evidence and the shocking disparity between the accusations and the presentation justify a reversal.” Id. at 14.

Brewer, J. v. Brewer, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2025

Moran’s testimony regarding her qualifications as establishing “that she’s an expert in alienation reunification.” N.T., 7/17/24, at 70. Further, Dr. Miele testified that she and Ms. … * * * Clearly, this court sought to further the reunification that Judge Menges’ address of the case had been unable to achieve due to Mother’s intransigence

Bond v. Gallen

292 Pa. Super. 207 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1982

Having determined that 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5502 and 5524 are the applicable statutes for disposition of Appellant's claim, we now must consider whether the legislature intended to effectuate a radical change in the long-established … Instead, in all of these cases the no-fault act is analyzed as providing limitations on recovery and qualified immunities for liability, not as abolishing a cause of action.

In the Int. of: G.K., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2016

The testimony establishes that his parents’ violent behavior qualifies as one of these disturbing triggers and that his parents have been involved in such behavior for a number of years. … The testimony establishes that his parents' violent behavior qualifies as one of these disturbing triggers and that his parents have been involved in such behavior for a number of years.

Miller v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

58 Pa. Super. 558 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1914

Whether the last three words qualified stopping or distance is not clear. At another time he testified as follows: “Q. Was that at the time you made your last stop, when your horse was within fifteen feet of the track? … It was clearly a case for the jury, on account of the disputed facts.

In the Int. of: A.C., Appeal of: D.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2020

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 has caused the injury … The trial court’s adjudication of dependency was clearly supported by its finding of abuse versus Mother. See Interest of I.R.-R., supra.

Com. v. Gales, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2016

Foley, did not believe the evidence was sufficient to establish Appellant was an SVP by clear and convincing evidence. … Therefore, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to enable the trial court to determine that the Commonwealth established, by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant qualifies as an SVP.

Com. v. Petrie, I.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2026

Valliere’s testimony from the SVP hearing, and concluded that the Commonwealth clearly and convincingly established that Appellant meets the statutory definition of an SVP: In conducting her evaluation, Dr. … Valliere’s testimony, the trial court explicitly acknowledged the Commonwealth’s burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Appellant qualifies as an SVP. N.T. (SVP/sentencing), 3/31/25, at 38.

In the Int. of: N.M.M., Appeal of: K.M.K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2022

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 … However, the evidence clearly established that Mother and Father were the primary caregivers for G.M. at the time of her death and that G.M.’s injuries occurred while G.M. was in their primary care.

Com. v. Bechtel, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2019

George’s testimony was improper,7 Appellant did not establish that trial ____________________________________________ 7It is unclear why the Commonwealth did not formally qualify Dr. George as an expert witness. Dr. … Further, we emphasize that Appellant did not establish that an expert existed and was available to testify on his behalf.

Com. v. Haines, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2025

Even if this were an actual field of expertise, Detective Daly is not a qualified expert. … Contrary to [Haines’] claim, [Haines’] texts clearly established that [he] commanded, encouraged, or requested that Page kill Eldridge and that [Haines] was engaged in a conspiracy with Page to kill

In the Interest of: Y.Z.I. Appeal of: A.R.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2014

N.T., 8/28 immunizations were delinquent, and his development was delayed. Id. at 27. Foster Parents subsequently adopted L.B., and the brothers are closely bonded in their home. … More importantly, for purposes of the mere preliminary question of standing, a child's blood aunt and uncle who indicate an interest in adoption clearly have an interest which surpasses that of the ordinary

Peterson, A. v. Stacy's Pizza

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2025

An abuse of discretion requires “manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous.” Nazarak v. Waite, 216 A.3d 1093, 1100 (Pa. … Pa.R.E. 702 authorizes a qualified expert witness to offer expert opinion testimony. Pa.R.E. 702.

Com. v. Dougherty, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2019

(2) If qualified as an expert, the witness may testify to facts and opinions regarding specific types of victim responses and victim behaviors. … exceptional circumstances such as where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute in the matter, or where the prior holding was clearly

Com. v. Prather, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 2019

The court determined that Appellant’s reliance on McWilliams did not qualify as an exception to the PCRA’s time-bar under section 9545(b)(1)(iii): McWilliams was based on clearly established federal law from … The Supreme Court in McWilliams, which [Appellant] predicates his timeliness argument under, merely interpreted Ake’s holdings and did not establish a new Constitutional right. Id. at 5.

Com. v. Bledsoe, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2020

standard governs our review of the admissibility of evidence: Admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly … Because the Commonwealth failed to properly establish any of the requirements for admission of Dr.

Com. v. Diaz, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2023

“received immunity from prosecution for a probation violation and $200 to find another place to live.” Id. at 21. … We disagree, as there was other evidence, aside from the C.I.’s testimony, establishing his guilt.

Zayas, J. v. Brizuela, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2025

As explained by our High Court, SIJS petitioners need only establish their entitlement to predicate findings by a preponderance of the evidence, not by the high evidentiary standard of establishing a definitive conclusion … Whether characterized as neglect or abandonment, these evidentiary findings clearly indicate that reunification with Parents is not a viable option for Child.