Case law

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.

LoveLovingLove v. Urban Property Solutions

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2021

The large, vinyl sign clearly states the following: “Environmentally Friendly Retaining Walls. … To qualify as a bona fide purchaser, the subsequent buyer “(1) must be without notice of the prior equitable interests of others,” Long John Silver's, 386 A.2d at 572-73 (citing Overly v.

Ozovek, A. v. Ide, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2026

Ozovek further contended that her denial of the MHPA’s applicability in her response to the new matter, was solely to the MHPA’s immunity provision. … defendants knew or should have known of a specific immediate threat to a readily identifiable victim in accordance with Emerich; • The pleadings fail to allege the MHPA and/or clearly

Com. v. Cunningham, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2023

Ballistic evidence introduced at trial established that the victims were struck by bullets from more than one firearm. Notes of testimony, 6/21, 6/25-26, 7/10-11/07 at 479-491, 498-499, 504. … Based on the foregoing, Appellant has clearly failed to demonstrate that his untimely petition satisfies the newly-discovered fact exception to the - 10 - J-S33036-23 statutory one

Com. v. Rodgers, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2026

Appellant argues the timesheets would have clearly demonstrated that Appellant himself was incapable of having filed any documentation for the WEDnet scam. … Appellant claims Venditti improperly testified that Appellant “signed” several documents; Venditti was not qualified to offer such testimony under Pa.R.E. 901 (Authenticating or Identifying Evidence)9; and trial counsel

Com. v. Huertas, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2020

(2) If qualified as an expert, the witness may testify to facts and opinions regarding specific types of victim responses and victim behaviors. … In response, the physician replied: “The history she provided to me pretty clearly indicated that she was sexually abused.” Id.

Com. v. Cook, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2026

. § 9714(a)(1) when Appellant did not qualify for said mandatory sentences, resulting in an unknowing plea and manifest injustice[.]” Commonwealth v. Cook, 325 A.3d 1275, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2024). … Here, Appellant insists his instant plea, entered in 2009, clearly encompassed an agreement that a person was not present in the home he burglarized, and the Commonwealth violated this agreement when he pled guilty in

In the Interest of: J.W., Jr., Appeal of: S.R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2022

Also while with Mother, [Child] was three (3) immunizations behind on his yearly shots due to several missed doctor appointments. … Since being placed in foster care, [Child] is up to date on all his immunizations.

Buchanan, S. v. Buchanan, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2020

she’ll have brain fog where she just has difficulty clearing her head, thinking clearly, being able to focus well . . . [and] difficulty maintaining concentration on projects.” N.T., 12/13/18, at 24. Dr. … Specifically, the trial court noted, the Domestic Relations Hearing Officer relied on the testimony of Bonnie’s psychiatrist regarding symptoms of chronic fatigue, cluster headaches, chronic immune

Commonwealth v. Reese

2011 Pa. Super. 235 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2011

“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 abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. … Kohn was insufficient to establish its validity. See Hess, supra (stating simple assertion of testimonial privilege does not establish its legitimacy).

Com. v. Auciello, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2020

At this time, the Commonwealth introduced a video of Corporal Gray’s body camera which captured the interaction with Appellant, who is clearly identified on the video. … Appellant offers no authority to suggest that the Commonwealth must produce each and every person who would be qualified to offer analyst testimony in connection with a report documenting scientific testing.2 Likewise,

Umphred, C. v. VP Auto Sales

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2015

As such, Ferdinand was properly qualified and accepted as an expert witness. Defendants' next four contentions are related, and will be addressed together. … As the testimony showed, Russell's activities clearly involved a significant- interference with the public peace.

Martin, S. v. Thomas Chevrolet

2026 Pa. Super. 78 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2026

In other words, there is no right to have any particular form of instruction given; it is enough that the charge clearly and accurately explains the relevant law. James v. Albert Einstein Med. … strike a similarly situated juror who also knew a potential witness strongly suggests that Appellant evaluated the pool of potential jurors and chose to exercise peremptory challenges on other jurors that it deemed less qualified

Cannon v. Tabor

434 Pa. Super. 232 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 1994

Thus, the statute clearly contemplates the application of the rule to intersections, where some vehicles are traveling in a perpendicular direction relative to each other. … In this hypothetical, the facts do not conclusively establish the existence of an emergency.

Adoption of N.M.T., Appeal of: M.G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2020

The [c]ourt finds that the grounds set forth in § 2511(a)(2) have not been established. . . . … Whether the [orphans’] [c]ourt erred and abused its discretion in failing to conclude that [Mother] met her burden of proof in establishing grounds for termination of [Father’s] parental

Com. v. Cruz, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2023

Commit Simple Assault, Possession with Intent to Deliver, Possession of a Controlled Substance, and -2- J-S06040-23 Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.1 Appellant qualified … Further, if an appellant has clearly not met the prejudice prong, a court may dismiss the claim on that basis alone and need not determine whether the other two prongs have been met. Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Rivers, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2016

Emanuel stated that no promises had been made to him by the Commonwealth in connection with his testimony in this case, however it was stipulated that Emanuel had received an Order [o]f Immunity regarding … Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts