Case law

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.

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.”

Erie Insurance v. Harding, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2024

Moreover, it is well- established that policy provisions “in conflict with, or repugnant to, statutory provisions[,]” such as the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), “must yield to the statute, and are … Moreover, Son did not qualify as a “Relative” because he was not a “Resident” of Mother’s household as he resided with Father.

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.”

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

Com. v. Smith, M.

320 A.3d 691 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2024

[T]he well-established rule [provides] that a law is presumed to be constitutional and may only be found to be unconstitutional if the party challenging the law can prove that it “clearly, palpably, and … (observing jurisprudence deeming the right to “enjoyment of private property” protected under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to be a - 12 - J-A27039-23 qualified

Commonwealth v. Robinson

2001 Pa. Super. 208 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2001

Officer Karl Rone, who was qualified as a ballistics expert, testified that the bullet would fit a .38 or .357 caliber revolver but not a TEC-9. … Lilian who got in on the competency hearing which made his decision tainted because he asked (9) questions to serve his purpose of his pre-disposed thought to qualify the child any way.

C.A.H. v. J.J.H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2019

It is well established in this Commonwealth that the standard for qualification of an expert witness is a liberal one. … It is also well established that a witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience. Formal education on the subject matter of the testimony is not required . . . .

Com. v. Zydney, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2017

Rundle, supra., which establishes a preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof. I. … Without this statement, the affidavit still clearly states from what source the subscriber information was obtained, and that this information was obtained with a search warrant.

Com. v. Henderson, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2018

Sergeant Kurt Tempinski of the Pennsylvania State Police was qualified by the court as an expert in the area of firearms and toolmark examination. Sgt. … In addressing this issue, the trial court concluded that DNA evidence was not necessary to conclusively establish guilt.

Swatt, A. v. Nottingham Village

2025 Pa. Super. 138 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2025

However, courts established that plaintiffs could not recoup a windfall by recovering twice. … “If, however, the damages sought to be recovered are for personal injuries, the two-year period of limitation is clearly applicable.” Id.

Com. v. Stuart, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2023

We do not disturb a ruling admitting evidence “unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly erroneous.” Id. … However, the victim's testimony, along with the corroborating testimony of Trooper Miller and Nancy Steil, provided a sufficient foundation to establish an adequate basis in fact to permit the testimony

Com. v. McCourt, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2021

Killen is also clearly distinguishable. … Jones, 240 A.3d 881, 891 (Pa. 2020).2 As such, “a properly qualified expert ____________________________________________ 2 Jones dealt specifically with sexual abuse of a minor.

In the Interest of: B.L.S. Appeal of: B.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2023

The Agency learned as well that the Child was last seen by her primary care physician in 2014 at the age of two, that she was behind on her immunizations, and that she had never seen a dentist. … Other members of the Agency established Father’s ongoing lack of supervised contact with the Child after she had been placed into kinship and foster care.

Spone, K. v. Spone, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2014

And she’s clearly stressed by her financial situation. It’s got to come out in the household. … Moreover, he contends: Because there is only one qualifying child for 2013, the child care tax credit is up to $3,000 instead of up to $6,000 for 2012 when there were two qualifying children.

Com. v. McLaine, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2015

They conclude that they are immune from criminal prosecution because a person cannot fraudulently convert his own property. … Here, McLaine received no promise of immunity.

Olup, T. v. Pennsylvania American Water

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2016

It is also well established that a witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience. … Olup “clearly possessed the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training and education to qualify him as an expert witness [and] for qualification to provide expert testimony relative to waterlines, waterline distribution

Com. v. Haywood, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2020

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that these facts were sufficient to establish probable cause to search the defendant’s residence, noting that, “whether an affidavit establishes a … S11046/19 “[T]he 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.

Commonwealth v. Biancone

249 Pa. Super. 34 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1977

Of course, an inference is a process of reasoning by which a fact or a proposition sought to be established is deducted as a logical consequence or a state of facts already proved or admitted by the evidence." … In my view, the issue under § 8 is whether a warrant permits the search of only one clearly specified location. Commonwealth v.

Hawbaker, J. v. Nottingham Village

2025 Pa. Super. 138 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2025

However, courts established that plaintiffs could not recoup a windfall by recovering twice. … “If, however, the damages sought to be recovered are for personal injuries, the two-year period of limitation is clearly applicable.” Id.