Case law

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.

Com. v. Elliot, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 2015

Constructive possession is an inference arising from a set of facts that possession of the contraband was more likely than not, and it may be established by the totality of the circumstances. … Clearly, neither of these locations would qualify as the Defendant’s home or place of business.

Com. v. Wright, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2026

Did the [trial] court err in stating that relevant experts were not qualified to identify entry and exit wounds? XI. … Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 701 permits a lay witness to offer opinion testimony only when the opinion is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness

Com. v. Shoffner, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2025

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 … Notwithstanding the principle that a sentence within the standard range is viewed as appropriate under the Sentencing Code, Appellant further contends that his sentence is clearly unreasonable in light of the omissions.

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.

Lutz, D. v. Heckman, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2021

-9- J-A26023-20 Initially we note that: [S]ummary judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine … Stempler, M.D., Certificate of Qualified Expert, 10/5/18. - 19 - J-A26023-20 In addition to Dr.

Sebree v. Huntingdon Water Supply Co.

72 Pa. Super. 553 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1919

The rule was qualified, in Justice v. … McFadden was the *579 owner, were clearly a personal claim, which did not run with the land.

Dominguez, J. v. Smith, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2021

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend his New Matter clearly articulated the basis for the Motion. … Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to establish an escrow account on Maternal Grandparents’ behalf.

Com. v. Cabiness, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 2018

Hawkins, who testified at his first trial, could have been qualified as an expert in the interpretation of Appellant’s linguistics code. Id. … Hawkins was qualified as an expert beyond the average resident of that area, but she was not called as a defense witness.

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

Hotel Furniture Liq. v. Castor Avenue Prop.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2016

With regard to the first prong, “[t]he law does not establish a specific time period within which a petition to open a judgment must be filed to qualify as timely.” Kelly v. Siuma, 34 A.3d 86, 92 (Pa. … Super. 2009). 4 qualify as timeliness.

Com. v. Hardik, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 2020

Bailor was qualified as an expert witness without objection by Appellant. Mr. … The Commonwealth clearly established the test was presumptive and no further lab tests confirmed the result.

In the Interest of: B.G., Appeal of: CYF

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2017

Child received a set of basic immunizations in Guatemala when he was young. 58. … Other than his immunizations, Child has never received routine health care in Guatemala and has never seen a doctor there. 59.

Com. v. Royer, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2024

[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Royer claims that this indicates that “the jury’s reasoning . . . was clearly based only on the aggregate false total conveyed to the jury.” Royer’s Brief at 54.

Com. v. Silverman, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2025

Trooper Jonathan Simmons [] of the [PSP] AFIS section, a latent fingerprint examiner, was qualified as an expert in the field of fingerprint analysis. … Here, the Commonwealth’s evidence included cell phone records, surveillance footage, and police body camera footage establishing Silverman’s whereabouts and actions on the night of the incident.

LOLA Drilling v. Rice Drilling

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2025

The Gorby Lease clearly conveys the intent of the parties to include a wide- ranging list of activities that qualify to extend the lease beyond the primary term. … Albert’s affidavit clearly established that there were disputed issues of material fact that could only be decided by a jury. Appellant insists that the trial court erroneously failed to consider the affidavit.

Com. v. Velasco, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 2019

N.T., 10/5/17, at 6. 6 Over Appellant’s objection, the court qualified Ms. Alegret-Bartel as an expert in translation and interpretation. … However,] the Commonwealth is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent.” Commonwealth v. Powell, 994 A.2d 1096, 1102 (Pa.

Com. v. Mattox, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2020

Evidence is admissible if it is relevant—that is, if it tends to establish a material fact, makes a fact at issue more or less probable, or supports a reasonable inference supporting a material fact—and … witnesses: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly

Com. v. Morgan, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2022

Very clearly, Mr. … clearly manufactured evidence.

Com. v. Myrick, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2023

Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017), our Supreme Court explained that “[t]o qualify for an exception to the time limitations [for newly- discovered facts], a petitioner need only establish that the facts upon which the claim … - 10 - J-S26007-23 As noted above, to qualify for an exception to timeliness based on newly-discovered facts, the petitioner must establish that facts upon which the claim