Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filterspasuperct

4,940 results

1.15s

  • Spencer, K. v. Johnson C.

    249 A.3d 259 · 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.”).

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Com. v. Bidwell, J.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2015

    In order to overcome this qualified privilege and obtain disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity, a defendant first must establish that the information sought is material to the preparation of the defense, and … Instantly, Bidwell has failed to make a showing sufficient to overcome the Commonwealth’s qualified privilege to withhold the identity of its confidential informant.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Johnson, T. v. Monro Muffler Brake

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2018

    establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a -3- J-A17009-18 matter of law. … The list does not contain any other clarifying qualifier, found in some statutes, such as “shall be limited to…”5 or “including but not limited to…”6 The General Assembly clearly knows how to use qualifiers, but did not

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Mitchell, J. v. Sturm, C.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2020

    for an abuse of discretion, which “means that the trial court’s decision will be overturned only if it reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly … To prevail in a claim against her, therefore, Appellant will require expert testimony to establish that Attorney Sturm’s representation violated the standard of care.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Com. v. Adbullah-Talib, H.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2015

    Hawkins was not qualified as an expert to render such an opinion. (N.T. at 66). However, it was unnecessary for Mr. … In addition, the evidence clearly established that Appellant actions and words amounted to several false statements and misrepresentations.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Com. v. Crosby, L.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2023

    He argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he acted carelessly. We affirm. … Officer Charles Farrell is qualified in the field of crash reconstruction and examination, including but not limited to pedestrian crash reconstruction.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Wasielewski, T. v. Goebel Insurance Agency

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2025

    clearly delineates the employer’s liability exclusion. . . . … - 14 - J-A17036-24 holding only prospectively, as the circumstances of Lamp are inapplicable here, given this Court has not presently modified or qualified an established rule

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Com. v. Bass, T.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2020

    In the petition, Appellant claimed he qualified for the newly recognized constitutional right exception to the PCRA time-bar. Specifically, Appellant relied on Carpenter v. … By employing the past tense in writing this provision, the legislature clearly intended that the right was already recognized at the time the petition was filed. Commonwealth v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Adoption of: B.J.F.-Z., minor, Appeal of: T.F.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2016

    I agreed, finding the evidence clearly established that termination of Mother's rights to the Children best served their needs and welfare. … Conclusion After a careful review of the evidence, I found that CYF had clearly and convincingly established grounds for termination under 23 Pa. C.S.A.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Belogolovsky, E. v. Gitter, L.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2024

    Issuing a support order that allows such a situation to exist clearly is not in the best interests of the children.” Id. … This would include, clearly, any change in custody or financial circumstances.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Com. v. Rivera, J.

    2021 Pa. Super. 105 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2021

    In McClelland, our Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth may not establish a prima facie case against a defendant relying on hearsay evidence alone. … Here, we agree with Rivera that the court admitted Trooper Higdon’s rebuttal testimony on re-direct examination in error, as it did not qualify as a “fair response.”

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Commonwealth v. Grays

    2017 Pa. Super. 245 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2017

    rule of evidence and statute is substantive rather than procedural); Sanchez, 552 Pa. at 576, 716 A.2d at 1224 (“A substantive right is defined as a right to equal enjoyment of fundamental rights, privileges, and immunities … Clearly, the protection of the public, as well as the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the lives of the surviving victims,...and the rehabilitative needs of [Appellant] [required] sentences

    Cited 174 timesPublished
  • Com. v. Quiles, E.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2025

    It is well established that a weight of the evidence claim is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and a new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because … Our Supreme Court found SORNA does not qualify as criminal punishment. See Torsilieri, 316 A.3d at 110. As such, we are bound by our Supreme Court’s decision in Torsilieri and Quiles’ final claim is meritless.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • In the Int. of: H.A.W., Appeal of: A.W.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2025

    CYS did not present any witness in support of the exhibits’ admission, let alone “the custodian or other qualified witness.” [See] 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6108(b); Pa.R.E. 803(6)(D). … Even if not waived, such claims are without merit as Mother was clearly provided with notice and the opportunity to be heard and defend herself.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • In Re: Balogh, C. Appeal of: Balogh, R.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2021

    “If the court’s findings are properly supported, we may reverse its decision only if the rules of law on which it relied are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable.” Id. (quoting Harrison, 745 A.2d at 678-79). … In the instant case, the Orphans’ Court concluded that Bank Vice- President James was not qualified to offer expert testimony regarding Son’s relationship with Mother, especially considering the single, limited interaction

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Commonwealth v. Larsen

    452 Pa. Super. 508 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 1996

    With the “accountability” goal of Hower in mind, we do not read IGJA to immunize those tried and convicted from the obligation of paying the government’s costs to accomplish such a result. 19 P.S. § 1223 (repealed but a part … This instruction was needed to place in perspective testimony to establish the standard medical practice in the community (required to be contravened to establish a conspiracy to violate Subsection 14 of Section 780-113).

    Cited 39 timesPublished
  • Bada, J. v. Comcast Corporation

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2015

    Van D1111k clearly illustrates the difficulty of satisfying both the conduct and context prongs to overcome the prohibitions of the Worker Compensation Act. … As such, this clearly shows that the Nanty-Glo rule is not applicable in this case. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs' argument on this issue is without merit.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Passarelli, M. v. Passarelli, J.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 2020

    In the spring of 2015, ____________________________________________ 1 A 529 account is a “qualified tuition plan[] established pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 529[.]” Brooks v. Brooks, ___ A.3d ___, 2020 WL 1242437 at *1 (Pa. … [We] construe the collateral order doctrine narrowly, and insist that each one of its three prongs be “clearly present” before collateral appellate review is allowed.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Estate of Rosemeier, R.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2023

    The reasons for removal of a fiduciary must be clearly proven. However, proof of a conflict of interest can be inferred from the circumstances. … She insists that Poorman did not establish why the document was prepared. Id. at 33.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Com. v. Hagens, K.

    Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 2016

    C.S.A. § 9799.24, for purposes of determining whether he qualified as a "sexually violent predator" (SVP) pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 Pa. … s alleged statement to her constituted hearsay not qualifying for admission under any recognized exception. The tender years exception to the rule against hearsay, set forth in 42 Pa.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.