Case law

Nazarak, S. v. Waite, R., Jr.

216 A.3d 1093 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 2019

-6- J-A16042-19 prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous. … That is, they sought to establish Nazarak’s injury was a pre-existing condition of the instant vehicle accident.

Com. v. Spence, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2016

Brewer’s affidavits did not establish the PCRA’s time bar exception found at Section 9545(b)(1)(ii): Based upon [these affidavits], th[e PCRA c]ourt concluded that Appellant failed to establish that … -8- J-S12017-16 new willing source for previously known facts, which does not qualify[.] PCRA Court Opinion, 10/2/15, at 9.

Commonwealth v. Jordan

2015 Pa. Super. 202 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2015

The defense does not get to confront and examine the informant to establish the who, where, how,, when, and why that give substance to any and all testimony. … This Court also recognized the importance of the Commonwealth’s qualified privilege to maintain the confidentiality of an informant in order to preserve the public’s interest in effective law enforcement.

Diakite, M. v. Moses, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2024

Fras was not required to be Diakite’s treating physician to qualify as an expert witness opining about Diakite’s need for future treatment. Id. at 18-19. … Although the trial court seeks a remand for further proceedings, the record clearly supports the trial court’s initial conclusion granting a new trial.

Com. v. Williams, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2014

Williams first argues that the Commonwealth failed to establish that he perpetrated the killing. See Appellant’s Brief at 19. … The trial court clearly resolved any conflicting evidence regarding the time period in which the fatal injury occurred in favor of the Commonwealth. Based upon Dr.

Infinity Select Insurance Co. v. Fleming, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2016

Thereafter, the provider learned, and facts adduced at trial established, that the insured had been ill and under the treatment of a physician. Id. … Thus, the Court recognized a qualified right to rescind. Nevertheless, the Court further qualified the right: Automobile insurance is not issued solely for the benefit of the individual purchaser.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Schwartz, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2018

[Appellee’s] motion for summary judgment therefore clearly falls within the exception to Nanty-Glo. TCO at 5-6. … [T]he law does not require that a witness qualifying business records even have a personal knowledge of the facts reported in the business record.

Com. v. Prough, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2016

well established. … Agent Sproat is qualified as an expert in drug investigations, and has received specialized police training in multiple areas, including drug identification and recognition, and evidence collection.

Dadey, C. v. Bloise, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2025

On October 10, 2024, this Court filed an order informing Father that this matter was an appeal from ICC, and that it did not qualify as a Children’s Fast Track appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 102. See Order, 10/29/24. … [Father’s] conduct, as established by the evidence presented at the hearing, clearly showed that he violated the order.

Com. v. Anderson, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2023

“To qualify for an exception to the PCRA’s time limitations under subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner need only establish that the facts upon which the claim is based were unknown to him and could … clearly testified that he only saw one person and that person was Stick Up.

Beech, S. v. Sharan, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2023

filed the instant cause of action based upon the theory that “the migration of the device could only be a result of a deviation from the ‘standard of care and skill required of, and ordinarily exercised by the average qualified … -2- J-A19013-23 malpractice alleged is so clearly within the common knowledge of the average layman” that Plaintiffs were “not required to produce an expert report to demonstrate

Al-Saleem, E. v. Health Network Lab.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 2023

Al-Saleem to perform services for which she was not qualified in direct contradiction of the terms of the agreement? 5. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment with respect to Dr. … The presumption can only be overcome if it is clearly established that the parties contracted for a definite period. See DiBonaventura v. Consol. Rail Corp., 539 A.2d 865, 867 (Pa. Super. 1988).

Com. v. Bell, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2023

Even if we were to overlook these deficiencies, we would conclude that Bell has failed to establish the newly discovered alleged address of Blake is sufficient to qualify as an exception to the PCRA’s time-bar. … Accordingly, the initial Judge’s order granting an evidentiary hearing on Bell’s current petition was clearly erroneous.

Com. v. Jacobs, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2015

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … The Commonwealth clearly has met that burden here. In addition to driving while intoxicated, the testimony at trial demonstrated Jacobs’ recklessness.

Penn Entertainment v. Zurich American Ins.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2025

Based on the evidence, this was clearly a scrivener’s error and [IFCC and Ace] are therefore entitled to summary judgment on their reformation counterclaims. … shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder.

Caranci, E. v. Monsanto Company

2025 Pa. Super. 101 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 2025

Reeves was not qualified as an expert witness and did not prepare an expert report on the consequences or effects of the international regulatory organizations, the trial court properly precluded _____________________ … Monsanto did not present its own expert to establish this theory; rather, it attempted to use Appellees’ expert to establish that it was Mr. Caranci’s exposure to benzene that caused Mr. Caranci’s cancer.

Deyarmin v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

2007 Pa. Super. 218 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2007

The ‘transactions or occurrences’ of waste being generated, handled, prepared, segregated, organized, etc. in Cambria County, by [Conrail], on a regular basis, qualify as ‘transactions or occurrences’ out of which the causes … While clearly suffi *15 cient to raise a factual dispute as to venue under Pa.R.C.P. 2179(a)(2) (regularly conducting business), the affidavit does not raise any issue of fact pertinent to venue premised upon Pa.R.C.P. 2179

Milshteyn, P. v. Fitness International, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2022

judgment entails reviewing the evidence of record to determine if there is a triable issue of fact: Pennsylvania law provides that summary judgment may be granted only in those cases in which the record clearly … the intent of the parties; 3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is

Foltz, H. v. Foltz, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2024

Foltz (Wife) appeals the order issued by the Mifflin County Court of Common Pleas, which established the obligation of James H. Foltz (Husband) to pay spousal support. … Wife argues that a personal loan she took out for roof repairs should have qualified for the “mortgage deviation.”

Com. v. Gudino, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2021

- 11 - J-A26005-20 physical welfare and clearly violated his duty of care, protection, and support. … “[T]here is no clear-cut rule as to the time sequence required for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance, but rather [a] fact- specific determination is to be made on a case-by-case basis.”