Case law

Com. v. Lockett, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2025

We further find Lockett would be unable to establish prejudice. The testimony at trial established Victim had a firearm. Three of the shell casings located in the area were fired from Victim’s firearm. … Lockett’s speculation that a deal was brokered is insufficient to establish his entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.

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

Com. v. Kudlach, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2022

On the contrary, the record establishes that this testimony was largely permitted at trial. 2021 Opinion at 7. … Doctors will have different qualifications and some doctors will be more qualified than others to provide evidence about specific medical practices. Id.

Com. v. Felder, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2023

. §] 9543(a)(2), a petitioner seeking collateral relief must establish a claim under one of the enumerated grounds in the statute, and deficient notes of testimony do not qualify. … Further to qualify for collateral relief, a petitioner must show that their claim is not waived. 42 Pa.C.S.[A. §] 9543(a)(3).

Com. v. Getchius, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2020

Appellant contends only an expert physician would have been qualified to testify about the significance of K.H.’s test results. … Twomey’s testimony was clearly of the type anticipated by the hearsay exception allowing an expert witness to explain the basis for her reasoning.

Com. v. Graham, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2016

If he does the fifteen which I’m going to tell the Court clearly is against my legal advice and I’m going to put that on the record. BY THE COURT: Right. … However, he has not established that the trial court, the Commonwealth, or his attorney induced him to believe that the reduced grading of codefendant’s offenses would immunize her from further action

Com. v. Aaron, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2023

This establishes that [Victim] was clearly annoyed or alarmed by Appellant’s actions; the required mens rea for [h]arassment. … He contends that the testimony “clearly demonstrated that he did not engage in fighting or tumultuous behavior[.]” Id. at 14.

Stanley-Laman Group, Ltd. v. Hyldahl

2007 Pa. Super. 380 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2007

Clearly the phrase “required to be arbitrated” is directly related to and modifies the agreement “to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy[.]” … Here, SLG is a non-natural entity which qualifies as a “person” under Form U-4. Further, under the NASD, SLG is a “certain other” and Hyldahl was required to arbitrate any claims with SLG related to his employment.

Roxy and Honey v. Richland Mill

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2024

Whether, in entering the June 5[, 2023] order, the [trial] court committed an error of law, because [Roxy] failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional misrepresentation. … Specifically, the trial court states that Appellants did not request to proceed with an interlocutory appeal from the trial court under Pa.R.A.P. 312, that this appeal does not qualify as an interlocutory appeal as of right

Com. v. Wilkinson, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2018

Appellant also argues that Officer Chmielewski did not establish she was intoxicated. See id. at 24-26. … provides: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly

Com. v. Newdeck, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2017

Furthermore, even if the circumstantial evidence alone did not suffice, the Commonwealth clearly established, pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(g), that the blood was drawn within two hours of operation for purposes of the … There is no doubt that the scenario herein, where the suspected DUI defendant received medical attention for injuries sustained in a crash, qualified as good cause.

Com. v. Bledsoe, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2020

Because the Commonwealth failed to properly establish any of the requirements for admission of Dr. … Here, the evidence clearly established that defendant, who was in his late 40s, forced K .• who was 15 or 16 years old and defendant's biological daughter, to have sex with him by

Com. v. Cavanaugh, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2021

Mere similarities between a defendant’s prior bad acts and the crimes for which he is being tried will not qualify for a Rule 404(b)(2) exception. … This Court may only disturb a standard range sentence if we find that the circumstances of the case rendered the application of the guidelines “clearly unreasonable.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(2).

Com. v. Weithers, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2022

. § 9542 (“The action established in this subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose that exist when this subchapter … Indeed, a legislative enactment will not be deemed unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution.

Commonwealth v. Brown

1999 Pa. Super. 257 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 1999

The nature of the government function involved is the authority to establish appropriate penalties for the commission of crime, which is a function of the Legislature. Commonwealth v. … These purposes are clearly in accord with due process protections under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

Sausman, S. v. Keisserman, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2024

Here, the trial court determined that Batts was a qualified expert as a certified real estate appraiser, with a degree in urban planning, who was qualified to testify about repair costs and loss in market value. … Co. of Pa., 91 A.2d 232, 235 (1952), and further clarified: In Kopka, the defendant clearly intended to cause the third party to trespass.

Commonwealth v. Berryman

437 Pa. Super. 258 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 1994

The legislature, by enacting the present statute, has made it more difficult to qualify for probation without verdict. … However, the legislature establishes the criminal sanctions to be imposed when a defendant violates a criminal statute of Pennsylvania. Id.

S.P. v. K.& B.H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2025

Judge Menges filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s claims in the federal case, “arguing that judicial immunity applies to bar the claims against him.” Id. … See generally id.; see also id. at *12 (concluding that “judicial immunity applies to bar the claims against Judge Menges.”).4 ____________________________________________ 4 In the federal case, “final review by a

Com. v. Ginn, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2025

The evidence presented at trial established that the victim had approached Appellant holding a baseball bat from about 15 to 20 feet away. … The showing of remorse was clearly qualified by Appellant’s reservations about whether the evidence had proven his guilt as to the murder offense.

Com. v. Armsted, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2014

Given this evidence, we agree with the trial court that the penetrating gunshot wound suffered by Woods qualifies as a “serious bodily injury.” See e.g., Commonwealth v. … The transcript reflects that the prosecutor qualified the purported statements of police with the word “basically.”