Case law

Com. v. White, W., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2025

Frederick, 498 A.2d 1322 (1985), argues that the statements do not qualify under Rule 804(b)(2) because the victim did not die. Id. at 8. … Clearly in looking at the evidence from yesterday that was elicited on the record, [the victim] himself testified that he thought he was going to die.

Com. v. Kujawa, T.

2025 Pa. Super. 46 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2025

Starks, however, aptly summarized the types of misconduct qualifying as “overreaching”: The United States Supreme Court has enunciated principally two types of prosecutorial overreaching. … In fact, the question was clearly limited to the allegations involving E.K.

In the Interest of: H.L., Appeal of: D.F.W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2014

CYF was unable to establish that the allegations rose to the level of abuse. … The trial court determined: [E]ven though [M]other clearly loves her children, and [H.L.]

Com. v. White, W

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2025

Frederick, 498 A.2d 1322 (1985), argues that the statements do not qualify under Rule 804(b)(2) because the victim did not die. Id. at 8. … Clearly in looking at the evidence from yesterday that was elicited on the record, [the victim] himself testified that he thought he was going to die.

Com. v. Brown, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2026

Importantly, not all inquiries during a traffic stop qualify as ordinarily incident to the stop’s mission, as measures aimed at finding evidence of other crimes or safety precautions taken to facilitate detours … Also, the totality of the circumstances test does not limit our inquiry to an examination of only those facts that clearly indicate criminal conduct.

In the Int. of: J.J., a Minor., Appeal of: DHS

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2021

The underlying Dependency Order clearly described [T.M.] as the Child’s Stepfather and that the Child be allowed to live with [T.M.]. … The central case that DHS relies on to establish that the order on review is collateral, In re J.S., 980 A.2d 117, 121 (Pa. Super. 2009), does not apply.

Lausch, M. v. Ling, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2025

.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2025 Appellant, Shan Ling, appeals from the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. We affirm. … Nevertheless, she presents the crux of her argument most clearly at the outset, where she contends: To help my child complete their college education and escape financial hardship, I filed a petition, “Petition

Salmon, S. v. The Philadelphia Contributionship

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2021

However, PCIC’s interrogatory did not clearly ask Ms. … Shawn Brown/Bentley’s ICM is thus qualified to testify to the cause, scope, and price of all the necessary repairs.

Com. v. Carter, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2018

Appellant’s sole challenge is whether the inoperable shotgun in his possession qualified as a “firearm” under Section 6105. … Consequently, the weapon at issue qualifies as a “firearm” pursuant to Section 6105, which was the only disputed element of the crime.

Com. v. Miller, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2024

Therefore, our standard of review is whether the trial court's legal conclusions are correct and whether its factual findings are clearly erroneous.” Id. (citation omitted). … Second, once a defendant qualifies the record with a sufficient prima facie case, the prosecution is then obligated to provide race-neutral explanations for the strikes being questioned.

Com. v. Andrews, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2021

Caitlynne Brophy was qualified as an expert in forensic toxicology at trial and testified that she tested Appellant’s blood sample. … Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts

Com. v. Custer, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2017

The order clearly stated that Appellant had “the right to appeal this decision within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. … However, a remand in this case is unnecessary as Appellant’s PCRA petition is clearly untimely.

Com. v. Cook, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2017

4  Initially, this Court notes that petitioner's second issue was not clearly … As petitioner failed to meet the pleading requirements established in the PCRA, and because he failed to establish that the after-discovered facts exception provided by Cruz applies,

Com. v. Watkins, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2025

She would testify[,] after being qualified as an expert in forensic pathology[,] … to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific certainty that she examined the remains of [M.W.], and … reviewed the toxicology … Therefore, we now turn to whether Appellant established a substantial question for review. We make the determination on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Crawford, 257 A.3d 75, 78 (Pa. Super. 2021).

Silver v. Pinskey

2009 Pa. Super. 183 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2009

Although I did [not] state so directly on the record, I clearly meant to treat the parties identically, including in terms of their incomes. … Father contends Mother’s spouse is paying the premium for the children’s health insurance and her spouse does not qualify as a “party” or as someone to whom Father owes a statutory duty of support under Pa.R.C.P.1910.16-6

Com. v. Veasley, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2015

Appellant stipulated at trial—and concedes on appeal—that he qualifies as a person not to possess firearms given his prior drug conviction. … This evidence is clearly sufficient to support the verdict of guilty as to the charge of terroristic threats. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kane, IO A.3d 327 (pa.Super. 2010). 3.

Com. v. Whatley, P. Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2025

She would testify[,] after being qualified as an expert in forensic pathology[,] … to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific certainty that she examined the remains of [M.W.], and … reviewed the toxicology … Therefore, we now turn to whether Appellant established a substantial question for review. We make the determination on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Crawford, 257 A.3d 75, 78 (Pa. Super. 2021).

Com. v. Ames, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2022

Appellant does not develop an argument establishing that he was both in custody and interrogated such that the statements were clearly inadmissible. … Brown was qualified as an expert in the fields of forensic nursing, physical injury, and treating sexual assault.

The Phila. Contributionship v. Hunter, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2021

Having established that PCIC obtained default judgment against Ms. … Hunter, and her grandnephew qualify as “insureds” under the Policy. Indeed, the undisputed facts of record reveal that the minor children were in Ms.

In the Matter of: K.M.L., Appeal of: K.M.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2024

The petitioner must present testimony “from individuals qualified by training and experience in evaluating individuals with incapacities of the type alleged by the petitioner, which establishes the nature and extent of … The orphans’ court shall consider whether a less restrictive alternative to guardianship can meet a person’s needs, even when -7- J-S25035-24 evidence clearly indicates incapacity