Case law

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).

MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Ciarmatori, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2020

“Summary judgment is appropriate where the record clearly demonstrates there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Am. S. Ins. Co. v. … Moreover, the Ciarmatoris have not established that they relied on Wells Fargo’s sending and resending of the Act 6 notice to their detriment.

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. Oaks, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2025

To the extent Oaks relies on States to support a collateral estoppel argument, we conclude that case is clearly distinguishable. … The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.

Com. v. Ettorre, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2026

During the hearing, Appellant repeatedly represented that she did not want to proceed pro se, wanted new counsel appointed, and had applied, but did not qualify, for a public defender. … After the court permitted Attorney McShane to withdraw, Appellant expressed clearly that she did not wish to proceed pro se but could not afford an attorney.

In the Interest of: J.B., Appeal of: J.F., father

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2016

* * * The facts of this case clearly establish that Father faced very significant obstacles to exercising custody of the minor child. … court correctly terminated [f]ather’s parental rights to [the - 15 - J-A04044-16 c]hildren, under the facts and circumstances of this case; [m]aternal [g]randfather qualified

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Cummings

438 Pa. Super. 586 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1994

In order to fulfill its purposes, the MVFRL established a recovery scheme that sets out minimum amounts of coverage that must be offered to the insured. See Lambert v. McClure, supra at 262, 595 A.2d at 631 . … Under this language, neither Sheare nor appellant would qualify as an insured unless one or the other had Ms. Cook’s permission to use the auto at the time of the accident.

Com. v. Styles, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2025

-7- J-S19020-25 charges that include just verbal conduct that would qualify as a domestic violence offense . . .” Id. … This fact is clearly relevant in the context of sentencing for the serious crimes of violence to which Appellant pled guilty - robbery and aggravated assault.

Com. v. Alterio, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2014

blood in order for the test results to be admissible, and case law clearly defines blood as whole blood, the trial court erred as a matter of law in admitting m the testimony clearly showed … Therein, the Department clearly states that some 9 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

De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v. Rozentsvit

939 A.2d 915 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2007

. — The following words and phrases when used in this division shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this subsection: “Finance lease.” … the lessor is the buyer of the goods) or that the right to possession and use of the goods (where the lessor is the prime lessee and the subles-sor of the goods) be acquired in connection with the lease (or sublease) to qualify

Sears v. 69th Street Retail Mall

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2015

Our review of the cited provisions, which, given the deficiencies in Appellants’ argument we shall not review at length, shows only that the Lease immunized Appellants from liability for “consequential damages or damages … not, prove that [Ashkenazy] played a different role or that [Ashkenazy] in any way acted outside the scope of the authority the Landlord granted. **** Pennsylvania law clearly

Com. v. Talbert, Z.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2015

. 3 Raheim Aimes (“Aimes”), who worked for Talbert at a barbershop, entered a guilty plea for a firearms possession charge arising out of the same incident, and testified for the Commonwealth at trial under a grant of immunity … that [Talbert] was the author of the lyrics and failed to establish that the lyrics, in fact, pertained to the incident in question?

Kopew, D. v. Toll Brothers, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2020

Moreover, the Kopews asserted that more discovery was necessary to establish which of the Toll entities were engaged in activity that would qualify them as members of the class protected by the Statute of Repose. … Such evidence would purportedly establish that their claims related to “injury” occurring within the Statute of Repose period.

T.A. v. Allen

447 Pa. Super. 302 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1995

We grant immunity *322 from criminal or civil liability to those who make a goodfaith report of suspected child abuse, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6318(a), and we presume good faith. 23 Pa.C.S. § 6318(b). … Clearly, the facts of the instant case are distinguishable.

Com. v. Hairston, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2015

Although her initial comment, that Hairston would not leave her alone, qualified as an excited utterance, C.H.’s further statements regarding the reasons for their dispute did not. … Moreover, he contends that even if the testimony was in some way relevant, its prejudicial impact clearly outweighed any probative value. Id. at 38-39.

Friedman, S. v. Bryn Mawr Hospital

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2017

All “three prongs [must] be clearly present before collateral appellate review is allowed.” Rae, 977 A.2d at 1126 (citing Melvin v. Doe, 836 A.2d 42, 47 (Pa. 2003)). … Super. 2013) (noting the elements of negligence and observing that immunity, the subject of the collateral order, “is factually distinct from the proof of any of these elements”).

Com. v. Parkinson, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2026

the trial court determined that the statute of limitations barred “prosecution of conduct that occurred prior to October 29, 2022” unless the Commonwealth “show[ed] that the charge[s] relate[d] to a statute that [was] clearly … The trial court “concede[d] that the actions of text messaging, emailing and contacting family could qualify as acts under the stalking statute.” Id.

Com. v. Wilson, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2015

guilt as to Count 3— Endangering the Welfare of Children was against the weight of the evidence as [Appellant] had the child in a car safety seat, drove in an unimpaired manner, and neither officer could qualify … case law clearly goes to the sufficiency of the evidence.

In Re: G.S., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2025

The custody order was amended on October 31, 2022, by agreement of Mother and Father to indicate that “Mother may have supervised visitation with the Child at such times as she may obtain a qualified … Child is clearly bonded with the Father and [Stepmother], who have performed all parental duties for him since June of 2022.