Case law

Com. v. Person, G.

325 A.3d 823 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2024

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Allenbaugh testified that he was familiar with and reviewed all the factors necessary to qualify someone as an SVP. Id. at 9. He testified that there was only one victim in this case. Id.

In Re: Adopt. of B.J.L.B., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2024

At the time Maternal Grandparents received the children, Sister had a broken nose and Child had received no medical care, including immunizations, since birth, and, as Maternal Grandmother testified, Parents did not have … Super. 2004) (stating the Orphans’ Court must consider the explanations offered by the parent facing termination of parental rights, to determine if the evidence clearly warrants the involuntary termination).

Muhammad, F. v. Ali, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2016

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 … comply with case management orders or repeated discovery requests, despite numerous opportunities and extensions given her to overcome serious procedural deficiencies in her case; ultimately, Appellant did not provide qualified

Com. v. Garnett, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2017

After the trial court qualified Officer Donohue as an expert in “illegal drugs, drug distribution and drug investigation[,]” defense counsel also requested that he be qualified as an expert on “weight as well.” … Constructive possession may be established by the totality of the circumstances.

Com. v. Stevens, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2023

The Commonwealth’s next expert, Lyndsey Emery, M.D., qualified as an expert in neuropathology, performed an examination on Z.S.’s brain, spinal cord, and eyes. Id. at 15-16, 19. … In his defense, Stevens presented the testimony of Scott Krugman, M.D., an expert qualified in the field of child abuse and general pediatrics. Id.

Com. v. Ramsey, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2016

She has also testified as a qualified expert in court cases 12-15 times. (N.T. at 111-112). It is quite clear that Lt. … The testimony clearly made a material fact, namely who presented the note, more or less probable.

Commonwealth v. Rosser

2016 Pa. Super. 51 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2016

At trial, Liskova was qualified as an expert in the area of sexual assault forensic examinations. … Constitution by granting the Commonwealth’s objection to defense counsel’s attempt to cross-examine the alleged victim regarding her conversation with [Rosser] during the walk to her house[,] as such testimony was aimed at establishing

Com. v. Terry, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2017

[He] did not clearly state, but insinuated[,] that he learned of the reward fund through recanted witness testimony. … Terry failed to establish that he filed his petition within 60 days of discovering this allegedly new information. See 42 Pa.C.S.

J.M. v. K.W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2017

Nevertheless, we found that the evidence adduced during the relocation hearing established that the proposed move constituted a relocation. … There still has not been a formal determination of the children’s best interest that would qualify as a “final” order.4 Hence, the interim order was temporary in name only.

Com. v. Brown, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2018

Here, Appellant’s undeveloped and confusing argument does not clearly identify what information or facts are at issue. … Thus, Appellant has failed to establish the newly-discovered facts exception to the PCRA time-bar. To the extent that Appellant attempts to establish this exception to the time-bar based on Commonwealth v.

Burger v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

2009 Pa. Super. 26 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2009

Pennsylvania law provides that summary judgment may be granted only in those cases in which the record clearly shows that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter … University of Pennsylvania Hospital, 558 F.Supp. 1365 (D.C.N.J. 1983), which stated, regarding WHYY: "There is no indication in the opinion that the same ruling would apply to the state's power to grant a corporation limited immunity

Ives, A. v. Ives, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2014

establish that his pension is now a disability pension. … Super. 2013), this Court distinguished Drake and Focht on the basis that those decisions 6 In Drake prior decisions in which we have held that a pure disability benefit will qualify as a martial asset subject to equitable

Com. v. Everett, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2024

These affidavits are clearly not “newly discovered.” … It is well established that to qualify under the newly discovered fact exception to the PCRA’s time- bar, not only must the petitioner file a PCRA petition within one year of -8

A.M. v. T.V.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 2015

As this Court has recognized, stepparents may be uniquely qualified to attain in loco parentis status to their stepchildren. … The cases in which standing has been denied by application of the “defiance” principle all reflect a well-established and clearly expressed objection/refusal by one or both of the natural parents to the development of

Com. v. PLS

894 A.2d 120 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2006

. ¶ 3 At trial, the following was established. … established that it had a coercive effect.

Sonnenfeld, M. v. The Meadows at Shannondell

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2020

The actions established by the testimony above clearly do not establish a breach of the standard of care to which Dr. Fullerton testified. Plaintiffs did not provide testimony of any other actions taken by Dr. … Fullerton was qualified to testify as to matters of the body that were contained within internal and geriatric medicine.

Layton, R. v. Layton, N.

2025 Pa. Super. 111 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2025

The trial court did not clearly adopt any of the DHO’s findings, did not cite the hearing transcript, and made only a few statements which could be interpreted as factual findings. … On this issue, we “recognize that our trial judges are honorable, fair and competent” and that “the judge himself [or herself] is best qualified to gauge his [or her] ability to preside impartially.”

Lewis, W. v. Lewis, C.

2020 Pa. Super. 140 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2020

It does not imply intentional wrong or bad faith, or misconduct, nor any reflection on the judge but means the clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment—one that is clearly against logic … On this issue, we “recognize that our trial judges are honorable, fair and competent” and that “the judge himself [or herself] is best qualified to gauge his [or her] ability to preside impartially.”

Monaco, K. v. Temple University

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2015

A lay witness may testify in the form of an opinion if it is “rationally based on the witness’s perception . . . , helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue . . . , and not … The trial court in the current case did not err in holding Medoff was not qualified to testify about Kobelin’s architectural conclusions.

Com. v. Paris, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2016

I, 12/17-23/14, at 167.1 The Commonwealth established the following. … Poach, 323 A.2d 50 (Pa.Super. 1974) (en banc), a civil case which Appellant states reflects the “somewhat established law regarding this issue.” Appellant’s brief at 40. Reilly is clearly inapposite.