Case law

Dalverny, M. v. Burgettstown Borough

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2018

-6- J-A27001-17 concludes that this matter does not even qualify as “inactive,” due to Appellee’s filing of a rule to file complaint. Id. … The record clearly belies Appellant’s claims.

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.

In Re: Adopt. of: J.E.M.-M., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2025

Petitioners] went through all the training and background checks to qualify as kinship care providers even though they are not related to [Mother, Father or, Child]. … Even where the evidence clearly establishes a parent has failed to perform affirmative parental duties for a period in excess of six months, the court must examine the individual circumstances and any explanation

Roosevelt-Bentman Trust Appeal of: Wirs, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 29, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as the "Trust"), on October 4, 2007.2 The Republican National Committee is alleged to be a qualified beneficiary of the Trust,' however' it denies any involvement with, … It failed to identify the arbitrator, the date and place of the arbitration hearing, and the details of notice and/or service to establish jurisdiction.

Randhawa, R. v. Kaur, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2022

established that Wife withdrew significant funds from the bank account, as confirmed by her signature on various checks, the evidence established that [W]ife withdrew … not even graduate from high school, but that wife holds a bachelor’s degree in arts, philosophy, home economics, physiology and music, and that as a result she is more qualified

In Re: R.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2022

Krausz’s assertion that she did not have enough information to determine if [R.B.] would pose a risk to himself or others is clearly deficient, as it does not even qualify as speculation, let alone reasonable speculation … However, viewed in its totality, the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that there is a reasonable probability that R.B. would suffer serious bodily injury or death within thirty days if untreated.

Com. v. Williams, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2015

It was established that no other individuals were in the area. Ms. … Mmyland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), established an ongoing obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.

Adoption of: C.J.S., Appeal of: J.J.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2025

Father’s filing of custody petitions, alone, does not qualify as “proactive participation” in custody litigation under these specific facts. … With respect to Father’s post-abandonment contact with the Children, the record evidence clearly indicates that his last relevant contact with the Children occurred in November 2021. See N.T., 2/6/25, at 15-16.

Com. v. Hood, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2017

Appellant was clearly identified as Mr. Taylor’s murderer during those calls. … “To qualify for an exception to the PCRA's time limitations under subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner need only establish that the facts upon which the claim is based were unknown to him and could not have been

Commonwealth v. Cole

167 A.3d 49 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2017

Clearly, in both states, an order issued to live-track a cell phone requires a minimum showing of probable cause. … Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement does not appear to challenge whether the evidence in question qualified as an exception to Rule 404(b)(1) as set forth under the first sentence of Rule 404(b)(2) (“This evidence may be admissible

Commonwealth v. Cole

167 A.3d 49 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2017

Clearly, in both states, an order issued to live-track a cell phone requires a minimum showing of probable cause. … Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement does not appear to challenge whether the evidence in question qualified as an exception to Rule 404(b)(1) as set forth under the first sentence of Rule 404(b)(2) (“This evidence may be admissible

In the Interest of: A.A. Appeal of: K.A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2024

Father appealed that ruling. 2 Although the juvenile court qualified Dr. … “The Legislature has determined that the likelihood clearly established abuse has occurred, other than at the hands of the custodian, is so small that prima facie evidence the custodian has caused the injury, either by

Com. v. Mixon, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2021

D’Addesi was qualified, by stipulation of the parties, as an expert witness. … In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.

Com. v. Schirmer, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2014

Thus, evidence of the suicide was clearly relevant to complete the story regarding the charged offenses. … Accordingly, the trial court found that “the conclusions of a township detective with training in the field of blood stain analysis and a state trooper qualified as an expert in blood stain analysis, together with the

Com. v. Henderson, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2021

Therefore, the trial court’s denial of counsel’s petition to withdraw was clearly not a manifestly unreasonable exercise of judgment, and [Appellant’s] underlying claim lacks merit. … A verdict is against the weight of the evidence where “certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Howard, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2025

Similarly, Burkhart and Dominick, as pre-trial detainees, clearly qualified as “prisoners” under Section 5123. … See Soto, 202 A.3d at 98 (stating that key inquiry in reviewing the adequacy of jury instruction is whether it accurately and clearly presents the law to the jury).

Com. v. Collins, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2026

He argues that Baker’s identification was unreliable and that the PCRA court erred in determining that the statement did not qualify as hearsay. … Kloiber, 106 A.2d 820, 826-27 (Pa. 1954) (stating that a court should caution the jury about identification testimony, “where the witness is not in a position to clearly observe the assailant, or he is not positive as to

In the Int. of: L.L., Appeal of: R.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2021

The caseworker further admitted that she was in no way a medical professional qualified to decipher medical records. … They clearly smoke a lot of cigarettes, which can be expensive.

Com. v. Hoyle, N.

2025 Pa. Super. 104 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2025

Therefore, to the extent that a qualified privilege for Appellant’s name is presumed under Section 105.4(c)(1), it does not extend to judicial orders under Section 105.4(b)(3). … ruling regarding the admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill- will, or such lack of support to be clearly

Com. v. Winter, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2025

It was established [Winter], prior to the date of the incident, had a rapport with K.J. … Markey testified that he was “qualified as a mental health expert in criminal proceedings at the -8- J-S40029-24 time of the trial in the underlying case; he was available to