Case law

Solar Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

137 Pa. Super. 325 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1939

Scharff, both qualified engineers, based on an inventory made by Mr. Dreyfus and checked by Mr. Scharff. … S. 388 ], does not change the rule so clearly established and followed up to the date of that decision, January 3, 1938.

Com. v. Whitmore, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2019

Rather, the record shows the court qualified its instruction by stating there was circumstantial evidence “tending to prove [Whitmore] was in possession of a gun. . . .” N.T. Trial, 10/18/12, at 196. … “Admission 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 its discretion.” Commonwealth v.

French v. Commonwealth Associates, Inc.

2009 Pa. Super. 152 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2009

V-J Auto Parts, Co., 596 Pa. 274 , 943 A.2d 216 (2007) (affirming use of qualified expert testimony concerning frequency, regularity, and proximity of appellee's exposure to asbestos-containing products sold by appellant) … expert testimony, it is noted that Appellant's allegations involve matters "not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons," Zokaites, 2009 PA Super 35, at ¶ 17 , 968 A.2d at 1287, and that expert testimony clearly

Com. v. Williams, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2025

Appellant did not timely seek to qualify to proceed in forma pauperis, and the notes of testimony were not made part of the record. … of the trial proceedings further hinders our ability to consider the merit of the ____________________________________________ comport with the rule, and the Commonwealth has objected, so the sentencing issues are clearly

Tryboski, J. v. The PA State University

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2015

First, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. … However, although Appellant fails to clearly explain her argument, we will consider it on the merits to the extent possible.

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.

In Re: A.N.L. Appeal of: A.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2017

Having established Mother’s failure to perform her parental duties for approximately three years, we next review the additional lines of inquiry required under In re Z.S.W., supra. … That date was not an all-encompassing period of immunity that she was promised.

Com. v. Adams, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2025

Moreover, the trial court clearly accepted the evidence for a limited purpose, which was to show potential access, not proof of use. Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim. … Felder, 247 A.3d 14, 19 (Pa.Super. 2021) (“After-discovered evidence is ‘peculiarly’ a question in the trial court’s discretion, because that court is uniquely positioned and qualified to appraise the reliability of the

Com. v. Stewart, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2015

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Additionally, he has been qualified as in expert in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the field of narcotics investigation over twenty times.

Com. v. Brown, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2021

While the Commonwealth possesses a qualified privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential source, a defendant can overcome that privilege by establishing, pursuant to Rule 573(B)(2)(a)(i) of the … Clearly, this case is distinguishable from Payne, as the Commonwealth was not relying solely on identification testimony of a single officer.

Nationstar Mortgage v. Williams, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2016

After certain qualifying events have occurred, the reverse mortgage is paid in a single payment. … Moreover, our standard of review is very narrow; we may only reverse upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law.

Com. v. Andino, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2025

THE COURT: Do you understand clearly what it is that you’re giving up? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. … Appellant attempted to establish the prejudice prong during his PCRA hearing, arguing that he has yet to be accepted into the treatment program. N.T., 11/21/23, at 7.

In Re: Est. of K.B.Z., Appeal of: K.J. Kozel

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2025

. § 3156 (“No person shall be qualified to serve as a personal representative who is … [u]nder 18 years of age.”). … Appellant clearly failed comply with the procedural rules regarding the preservation of appealable issues, but we nevertheless decline to exercise our discretion to impose sanctions.

Com. v. Schaeffer, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2019

Our standard of review is restricted to establishing whether the record supports the suppression court's factual findings; however, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court's legal conclusions … That issue was not argued before the trial court and is not presently before us since the report at issue clearly set forth specific amounts of Buprenorphine and Norbuprenorphine detected in Schaeffer’s blood sample.

Com. v. Williams, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2019

Appellant asserts that he qualifies for an exception to the time bar under § 9545(b)(1)(ii). See Appellant’s Brief at 10. … Trial counsel was clearly responding to, and addressing, matters that he believed were not previously discussed with [Appellant].

Commonwealth v. Williams

2014 Pa. Super. 88 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2014

Ingram was not qualified to render such an opinion in this case, and the anticipated opinion would unfairly bolster Appellant’s version of events while minimizing other evidence. … not be found merely because the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a showing of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly

Independent Enterprises v. JD Fields

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2015

Specifically, JD Fields argues -6- J-A07041-15 that the evidence is insufficient to establish that it breached its contract with Independent and that Independent established its … The duty of assessing damages is within the province of the fact-finder and should not be interfered with - 18 - J-A07041-15 unless it clearly appears

Com. v. Schrock, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2018

Our review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine is well- established: When ruling on a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion in limine, we apply an evidentiary abuse of discretion standard … presented sub judice, we note Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 701 provides that a lay witness may offer opinion testimony so long as it is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly

Com. v. Loughran, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2025

Such statements are not expressed with the requisite degree of certainty to qualify as competent expert testimony. … Importantly, opinion testimony is inadmissible to establish a character trait. See Pa.R.E. 405(a); 608(a); see also Commonwealth v. Butler, 621 A.2d 630, 632 (Pa.

Com. v. Tedesco, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2017

She also raises the issue of spousal immunity, contending that testimony of either co-defendant is subject to spousal immunity and is inadmissible against the other spouse. We disagree. … As to spousal immunity, as the trial court recognized, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5913 provides for spousal immunity in a criminal proceeding but with certain exceptions, one of which is a criminal proceeding that includes a murder