Case law

Com. v. Cole, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2022

After the parties established that the matter would proceed to a bench trial, the court set the trial date for June 15, 2021. … However, the court clearly treated the exchange that occurred on June 15, 2021, as an oral motion for a continuance, and we will do the same.

Trimmer, C. v. Nationwide Mutual v. Stevens, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2014

Our scope of review of a trial court’s order granting or denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where it is established that … Rather, the record clearly discloses that Nationwide refused to insure Stevens due to his extensive driving record, including DUI.

Ezzeldin, S. v. Ezzeldin, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2017

Husband did raise his second objection before the master by maintaining that the witness was not qualified to offer an opinion, id., but Wife proceeded to establish that Mr. … The record established that Mr.

Com. v. Holston, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2017

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. … [Appellant] clearly has indicated he does not wish to live by the rules of our society and clearly not shown to change his felonious ways.” Id. at 9.

In Re: Est. of S.M.C., Appeal of: Cavallo, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2025

As noted by the orphans’ court, the draft 2014 will: (1) did not contain a provision for Brondo to run the restaurant; (2) named Pilar as a remainder beneficiary with a 100% share; (3) discussed a testamentary trust, a qualified … When asked about the qualified subchapter [S] trust provision on page five of the alleged 2014 will, [Pilar] testified that she “wanted to take it out”, and that both she and the [Shirley] laughed about

Com. v. Perez-Rodriguez, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2023

Hoffman"), who was qualified as an expert qualified expert in the field of forensic pathology. pathology. Id. at 211-16. Dr. … established.

Com. v. McLaughlin, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2021

The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … In admitting the evidence, the trial court concluded that the comment qualified as an excited utterance because it was a statement relating to a startling event made while the declarant was under the stress of the excitement

Sprague, R. v. Porter, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2014

I conclude, however, that the evidence of record, when viewed under the appropriate standard of granting all reasonable inferences to the non- moving party, is more than sufficient to establish, clearly and convincingly … His explicitly qualified statements, taken in context, were enough to establish that Porter knew he was not speaking for himself, validity of her claims certainly gives rise to an inference that she was In addition

In the Int. of: D.B.T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2021

stated: Deference to the facts as found by the original factfinder is of particular importance in circumstances where the factfinders have specialized training or knowledge that makes them uniquely qualified … The above evidence supports the trial court’s extension of Appellant’s involuntary treatment because it clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Appellant was severely mentally disabled, posed a clear and present danger

In re Milton S. Hershey Medical Center

407 Pa. Super. 565 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1991

. §§ 7601-7612 (Purdon Supp.1991), was promulgated to promote voluntary blood testing to limit the spread of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). 35 P.S. *573 § 7602. … The issue of under what circumstances the identities of those testing positively for AIDS should be disclosed should be left to those who establish public policy on matters affecting the health of this nation.

Spencer, K. v. Johnson C.

2021 Pa. Super. 48 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2021

In this argument, he contends the Fair Share Act does not immunize employers for the negligence of its employees. See Brief of Appellant, at 35. … establishes that he should have seen those signs.”).

Com. v. Jean, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2016

Cruz, 852 A.2d 287, 293 (Pa. 2003) (holding that “in some circumstances, claims that were defaulted due to the PCRA petitioner’s mental incompetence may qualify under the statutory after-discovered evidence exception” … The case at bar clearly does not fall within the Cruz exception. Here, unlike in Cruz, [Appellant’s] competency to stand trial was investigated.

In the Interest of: R.W., a Minor, Appeal of: WCCB

169 A.3d 129 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2017

It is well-established that “goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.” In re B.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 345 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted). … We have stated that, “[tjhese statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” In re S.B., 208 Pa.Super. 21 , 943 A.2d 973, 978 (2008) (citation omitted).

In Interest of Rhine

310 Pa. Super. 275 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1983

Where the state opposes parents in custody matters our Legislature has established clear guidelines and procedures. … Brandenstein was not qualified as an expert to testify as to the cause of Cheryl Ann’s conduct *291 which was, in fact, the underlying issue of the visitation hearings. Moreover, Mrs.

Com. v. Chowdhury, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2018

Her own words on tape clearly contradict her grand jury testimony. Thus, even if Appellant is correct that every witness lied at trial about her involvement in Dr. … She continues: Clearly, Dr. Khan is named in the Information as the party [Appellant] allegedly aided.

Com. v. Ross, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2024

We find that the trial court’s conclusions are supported by competent evidence and are clearly free of legal error. … Due process clearly attaches, but due process is a flexible concept, incapable of precise definition.

In Re: E.M.G., Appeal of E.M.G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2021

After the co- guardianship was established, Appellant resided at Love Lighthouse Personal Care Home in Treichlers, Pennsylvania. … However, she is not qualified to offer a professional opinion,[4] and as such, we accept the testimony as a fact witness the same as [] the other testimony [from] [R.G.] and [Appellant].

Trust Bank v. PA Muscle Bone Joint

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2023

D’Arco makes no claim in his pleadings or his declaration that he qualified under Truist’s standards of creditworthiness for the credit requested. … We concluded that “[e]vidence of this location of a conspicuous cognovit contained within the body of the agreement sufficed to establish that [the executor] effectively signed his name to the warrant of attorney.”

In the Int. of: A.I.S., Appeal of: T.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2019

When [Child] entered OCY custody, she required significant dental work and was behind in receiving her required immunizations. … § 2511(b), stating: Currently in this case[,] the testimony clearly established that there is affection between birth [F]ather and [Child].

In Re: Estate of Jabbour, C., Appeal of: Jabbour

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2018

-7- J-A02009-18 palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court’s decree.” Id. … During voir dire as to qualifications, Petitioners established that Mr.