Case law

Costello, J. v. Ah! Some Chocolates, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2020

There is no evidence of record to establish that Dolan possesses specialized knowledge or skill in the subject of forensic economics. See Jacobs, supra. … This business clearly never showed a profit and it would be speculative to conclude that it had value and would have been profitable….

Com. v. Thorpe, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2018

Herein, Appellant contends his patently untimely petition qualified for merits review under an exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirement. We affirm. … Upon review, we conclude Appellant has failed to meet his burden to establish that the exception at section 9545(b)(1)(ii) applies to his case.

Com. v. Akins, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2019

[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … What we glean from Appellant’s brief is that he is exasperated by the failure of the trial court to accept his position that his bill of lading and shipping order served to qualify him as local traffic such that he was

Com. v. Reich, S.

2025 Pa. Super. 126 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2025

Here, the proffered testimony of Gallardo clearly qualifies as evidence of M.R. and E.A.’s prior sexual acts, making the testimony inadmissible unless an exception to the Rape Shield Statute applies. … s contact with [Appellant] was consensual, nor would it establish that M.R. had a motive to lie about what occurred in the hotel room. [Appellant] counsel thoroughly challenged M.R.'

Com. v. Jones, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2021

He was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic testing for gunshot and gunpowder residue. T3 404. Mr. … As will be discussed in the next section, the evidence clearly established that Defendant Davis attempted to commit murder. I8  2.

Com. v. Amill-Torres, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2025

Appellant concedes that “[t]he evidence was clearly sufficient to establish that [Appellant did not have a] carry permit[,] that he had the firearm out in the public in Philadelphia, which is a city of the [f]irst [c]lass … Instead, the pertinent criminal act is the intentional, knowing, or reckless possession of a firearm on the public streets of Philadelphia by a person who is not licensed (or who does not qualify as an exempt individual

Com. v. Bailey, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2018

The court’s remark was not in response to any discussion about whether Officer Obarto had to be qualified as an expert to offer testimony about the gun. … Appellant’s terroristic threats and simple assault convictions against Colina were clearly supported by Presher’s testimony.

In Re: Y.K.L., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2021

See Notes of Testimony (“N.T.”), 8/24/20, at 5. 3The Agency presented the testimony of Carla Sanders, Adoption Supervisor, BCCYS; Alison Hill, licensed psychologist and professional counselor, who was qualified as an expert … Attorney Favinger is known by the [orphans’] [c]ourt to be a competent and qualified member of the bar with significant experience in dependency proceedings. Ms.

Com. v. Brooks, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2015

In fact, the jury heard that Spaulding received use immunity in exchange for his testimony in the present case. Id. at 47-48. … This Court's main concern is that the charge clearly, adequately, and accurately presents the law to the jury for its consideration.

Ross, S. v. University of Pennsylvania

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2017

When neither a certificate of merit nor a written statement from a qualified expert was forthcoming, Appellees, on August 7, 2015, filed a praecipe for entry of a judgment of non pros. Id. at 2. … ” -6- J-S23002-17 statement in this case clearly indicates that notice was issued under Rule 236 on August 7, 2015, the date the judgment of non pros was entered against

In the Interest of: M.C.-P., Appeal of: R.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2018

At the time she was taken into care, Child was behind on her immunizations. CYF filed a shelter care application and a dependency petition. On February 10, 2017, the court issued a shelter care order. … When told that living situation did not qualify as stable housing, [Father] remained there.

Com. v. Wells, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2018

Thus, the statute in this matter clearly provides that claims raising constitutional violations are cognizable under the PCRA. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(i). … Here, [Appellant] was clearly claiming he was innocent of a crime he was convicted of [committing], specifically first[-] degree murder.

Com. v. Stewart, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2022

What the child told these witnesses and how she told them was introduced to establish the timeline of events, not the truth of the matter asserted. … Section 5920(b)(2) allows a qualified expert to opine on “types of victim responses and victim behaviors.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5920(b)(2).

Com. v. Rainelli, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2021

not amount to abuse of discretion; instead, we look for manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, -3- J-A28024-20 prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly … I didn’t intend to authenticate a document from 197[8] which at this point qualifies it as an ancient document.

Com. v. Velasquez, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2025

Did the PCRA court err when it concluded that Appellant had failed to prove one of the three exceptions to the PCRA time-bar where the [Davenport a]ffidavit had clearly established the newly- discovered … See Velasquez, 2067 EDA 2017 (unpublished memorandum, at 4) (noting Velasquez’s judgment of sentence became final on September 1, 1977, and Velasquez did not qualify for the one-year tolling provision contained in the 1995

Com. v. Lemus, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2018

-4- J-A28035-17 The “[a]dmission 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 … Super. 2008) (stating that the presence of a firearm in close proximity to drugs is a relevant factor in establishing PWID).

Com. v. Bova, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 2026

Moreover, the PCRA court concluded that “even if the amendments were applicable[,]” Appellant’s violation of probation “was ‘sexual in nature’ thereby qualifying as an exception under [newly enacted] 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771 … “[T]he court may only revoke a defendant's probation for a technical violation … if the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the defendant violated a specific condition of probation or committed a new crime.”

Commonwealth v. Veon

109 A.3d 754 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2015

“[A] statute will not be found unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution. … In contrast, testimony at trial established that Veon used BIG funds to have offices—space in Beaver Falls, Midland, and Pittsburgh.

Holz, T. v. Langton, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2018

It would appear that [Appellant] qualifies for [IFP] status as he is incarcerated in a federal correctional institute. … The Complaints on their face are entirely frivolous or clearly indicate this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Com. v. Lamey, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2016

“[A]lthough we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside impartially.” Id. at 392 (citations omitted). … However, here, where there is clearly no appearance of impropriety with respect to the trial court judge, we conclude the facts of this case satisfy both standards. See Lomas v. Kravitz, 130 A.3d 107, 122 (Pa.