Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

In the Interest of J.M.

438 Pa. Super. 409 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1995

It is a power which a government dedicated to freedom for the individual should exercise with extreme care, and only where the evidence clearly establishes its necessity. … In reviewing such decisions, "we generally defer to the trial court's judgment because, by virtue of its position, it is uniquely qualified to determine factual matters." Id. at 452 , 625 A.2d at 1187 .

Harvey, S. v. Palumbo, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2015

Hale had checked his mirrors after the turn into Tipple Lane, he could have clearly recognized that Mr. Hanright was in trouble and applied his brakes at that time. … Super. 1995) (“[I]t would have been proper to have a qualified expert describe what the applicable standard of care was [for truck drivers].”); see generally Brandon v.

Com. v. Carter, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2020

Did the court of common pleas err in rejecting Appellant’s claim that the right established in Miller v. … Nonetheless, we indicated that questions of who qualifies as a juvenile and whether Miller should apply to immature people who were over eighteen when they committed their murders “are better characterized as questions

Wilson, K. v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2017

Omalu “as a qualified expert as a forensic pathologist, a clinical pathologist, and a neuropathologist.” (Id.). … Omalu “as a qualified expert as a forensic pathologist, a clinical pathologist, and a neuropathologist.” (Id.).

Com. v. Mucci, F.

2024 Pa. Super. 267 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2024

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. … As a result, [the] appellant’s claim that he cannot be required to submit to RNC requirements set forth in Subchapter I of SORNA II is clearly meritless.

Com. v. Mancuso, D.

2026 Pa. Super. 70 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2026

“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the … The fact that the victim cannot set a date for the crime should not necessarily be fatal to the Commonwealth's case, thus making the assailant virtually immune from prosecution.

Com. v. Alsbrook, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2024

Clearly, in both situations, the criminal defendant has a right to effective representation. … The Commonwealth concedes that the log may not have qualified as a business record since that exception does not apply if the records are generated for use in court.

Com. v. Armour, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2026

Further, the Commonwealth indicated “his prior record score is POG Of 4, which is the highest it can be in one qualifying offense. That’s aggravated assault F1 from a 2023 guilty plea.” Id. … Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or

TD Bank v. Massengill, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2025

This notice shall be in plain language and specifically state that the recipient of the notice may qualify for financial assistance under the Homeowner's Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program. … Thus, a “tender” clearly requires an affirmative “offer” on the part of the debtor.

Fritz, P. v. Witmer, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2024

Appellants’ Brief, at 25, 29 (“The jury was misled by him being qualified as a neuropsychologist.”). Dr. … Greenwald’s analysis, which were predicated on two post-report medical visits, were clearly unfair to Witmer.

Abbott v. Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, LLP

2002 Pa. Super. 247 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2002

The scope of our review of an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment is well established. … Schnader asserts that it is unfair to apply the Kemmerer analysis to an agreement established before Kemmerer was decided.

Com. v. Goldwire, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2019

In order to overcome this qualified privilege and obtain disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity, a defendant must first establish, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(2)(a)(i),6 that the information sought is material … According to Goldwire, the PennDOT record was not adequately certified because the Commonwealth did not qualify Officer Stevens as an appropriate custodian or other qualified witness.8 On this basis, he argues that the

Com. v. Wheeler, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2018

Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), recognized a new Constitutional right and therefore qualifies for the newly- recognized right exception set forth in § 9545(b)(1)(iii). … Therefore, the PCRA court did not err in concluding this claim did not establish a timeliness exception.

Com. v. Williams, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2020

Jury Trial, 3/12/19, 163-64, or his motion to grant Olexovitch immunity to testify. See N.T. Pre-Trial Hearing, 3/4/19, at 102-08. … I believe, and they will argue if they choose, that that somehow establishes the identity of the owner of the T-shirt to [sic] Joseph Williams.

Commonwealth v. Green

2016 Pa. Super. 214 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2016

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … When considering what qualifies as confinement in a place of isolation, this Court' has held: the concept is “not geographic isolation, but rather effective isolation from the usual protections of society.”

Chaclas, M. v. Chaclas, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2025

Platt determined the date of separation during the course of a hearing on the establishment of a constructive trust. … Husband states in his brief, “[T]he Hearing Officer awarded Plaintiff [Wife] fees for opposing the preservation of $160,000 which is clearly in error.”