Case law

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. Sutherland, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2021

that he had a flash drive that he believed would aid in that investigation,2 as well as the photograph that is the subject ____________________________________________ 2 Although the unrelated investigation was not clearly … He maintains that the complaint did not qualify as a past recorded recollection exception to the hearsay rule because the Commonwealth failed to establish that Autumn Sutherland lacked an independent memory of the event

Com. v. Yeager, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2020

distinction between PCRA petitions and motions for postconviction DNA testing under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543.1: [m]otions for post-conviction DNA tests, while considered post- conviction petitions under the PCRA, are “clearly … Moreover, in order to qualify for post-conviction DNA testing, Section 9543.1 requires an applicant to, inter alia, “present a prima facie case demonstrating that the ... identity of or the participation in the crime by

In Re: Adoption of: A.P.G. Appeal of: K.M.H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2015

Our review of the certified record confirms that Mother established by clear and convincing evidence that Father failed to utilize available resources to establish a parental relationship or exercise reasonable firmness … Kagarise was qualified as an expert in the area of child psychology addressing the impact of termination of parental rights upon children of A.P.G.’s age and maturity. N.T., 10/27/14, at 39-40. Mr.

D&G 306 v. Carr, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2025

The Property qualifies as Section 8 housing1 through the Delaware County Housing Authority (“DCHA”). ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 Section … D&G has not established that Carr’s conduct in pursuing this claim based on the lease terms was arbitrary, vexatious, obdurate, or dilatory. Cf. In re Estate of Simpson, 305 A.3d 176, 187 (Pa.

A.M. v. A.J., Appeal of: L.F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2021

/Father, thus establishing standing pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §5324(2)(in loco parentis standing)." … Ferguson set forth her assertion of Mother's position, clearly set forth at the January16, 2020 hearing her belief that she and Father should share custody and that Ms.

Com. v. Jimenez, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2020

Once jurisdiction is established, the petitioner may then present a substantive new-facts claim. Id. (citation omitted). … Appellant’s allegation that his daughter discovered this fact clearly shows that appellant failed to allege and prove that he exercised due diligence in discovering this fact.

United States Steel Corp. v. Hoge

304 Pa. Super. 182 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1982

Craig and Myers point clearly to this analysis: that is to say, that despite repeated references to coal as land it is not truly land (although it be terra firma) but a mineral deposited within the land and its ownership … On the contrary, in this state these matters are firmly established otherwise. Hamilton 272 Pa. at 102 , 116 A. at 52 .

Com. v. Crocker, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2020

As such, [Crocker’s] claim does not qualify under the newly- discovered evidence exception. Rule 907 Notice, 4/12/16, at 2-3. … Such a source does not qualify as a fact unknown to the petitioner. Commonwealth v.

Isiminger, D. v. Davis, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2015

Initially, “[w]e recognize that our trial judges are honorable, fair, and competent, and although we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability … Counsel apparently knew of the various conflicts and never mentioning someone by name is clearly not the law ….

In the Interest of: Z.E.W.-C., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2016

Moreover, DHS learned that [Children] were not up to date with their medical, dental and vision or their immunizations. … Erica Williams, an expert qualified in the field of forensic and clinical psychology, completed a [Parenting Capacity Evaluation (“PCE”) for [Mother]. Dr.

L.B. v. J.W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2018

[Mother], the same thing with the extended family and friends to take care of [Child], that clearly favors [Mother]. … Clearly that’s mom. Mom’s been there for [C]hild. [Father’s] been busy taking care of himself.

Com. v. Terry, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2018

Further, the trial court also qualified defense counsel’s exchange with the court as a proper objection. … Terry urges this Court to substitute his ‘‘substantial change rule’’ in place of his burden to establish his reliance.

ABC Pediatrics v. Health Partners

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2015

The law of this Commonwealth establishes that an agreement to settle legal disputes between parties is favored. … (citations omitted, emphasis added).2 Appellant maintains that the qualifying language, “[Appellant] explicitly reserves any other rights available to it pursuant to the provider agreement

Com. v. Peyton, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 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 … Additionally, “attorneys’ fees are recoverable from an adverse party to a cause only when provided for by statute, or when clearly agreed to by the parties.” Id. at 706 n.2 (citations omitted).

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Cummings

652 A.2d 1338 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1994

In order to fulfill its purposes, the MVFRL established a recovery scheme that sets out minimum amounts of coverage that must be offered to the insured. See Lambert v. McClure, supra at 262, 595 A.2d at 631 . … Under this language, neither Sheare nor appellant would qualify as an insured unless one or the other had Ms. Cook’s permission to use the auto at the time of the accident.

Com. v. William, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2019

We first address William’s claim that Seth’s statement does not qualify under either the “excited utterance” or present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay rule. … Here, we agree with the trial court that Seth’s statement that William had a gun made contemporaneously with the altercation and only a few moments before he was shot qualifies under both exceptions.

In Re: Hilliard, J., Appeal of: Hilliard, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2023

We emphasize that “a party challenging a statute must meet the high burden of demonstrating that the statute clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution.” Id. … As such, you do not qualify at this point in time for a change of name. MR. DOBSON: From my understanding, it actually states that the court may order that still.

Com. v. Flamer, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2024

investigator to attempt to receive these “missing” records, to no avail and [Appellant] does file this petition within 60 days of discovering the new evidence, whereas, the final report from the investigator, clearly … Appellant has failed to establish that the PCRA court erred in holding that his petition did not qualify for a timeliness exception.

Eastern Steel Const. v. International Fidelity

282 A.3d 827 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2022

Owner, the bond obligation shall be deemed null and void if the Contractor “[p]romptly makes payment ____________________________________________ need not resolve whether under these circumstances the arbitration award qualifies … In rejecting this contention, we held that the surety’s assertion ran counter to well-established case law.