Case law

Commonwealth Phys. Network, LLC v. Manganiello, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2022

To that end, each prong of the collateral order doctrine must be clearly present before an order may be considered collateral.” Meyer- Chatfield Corp. v. Bank Fin. Servs. … A defendant may not base his defense upon an opinion of counsel and at the same time claim that it is immune from pre-trial disclosure to the plaintiff.

Com. v. Herb, J., III.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2015

It has been clearly established that the PCRA’s time limitations are jurisdictional. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999). … Therefore, Appellant does not qualify for an exception under § 9545(b)(1) that can save his PCRA petition from the time bar of the PCRA.

Com. v. Seals, J.

2026 Pa. Super. 29 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2026

was Montgomery County’s veterans’ treatment court, which “defers proceedings after the adjudicatory disposition of the charges via a plea of guilty in order to provide specialized court- supervised treatment programing to qualifying … Stated another way, by its express terms, Act 44’s amendments (other than section 9774.1) “are to be construed retroactively,” as “clearly indicated under the provisions of the statute.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Woodard, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2022

-9- J-S29026-21 Here, the totality of the circumstances clearly established that Woodard acted with either the intent to cause terror or reckless disregard for the risk … Woodard argues that these payments constitute an illegal sentence because neither payee qualifies as a victim eligible for restitution under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106.

Keri,, M. v. Conemaugh Valley Memorial

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2021

Thus[,] 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. … Dauber’s testimony was sufficient to establish the UpToDate online resource qualified as a learned treatise. She notes Dr.

Com. v. Frazier, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 5, 2016

These inferences, taken together, establish that [Appellant] removed the GPS device for the purpose of entering the restricted area. … Clearly, such an inference is within the knowledge of a layperson. Additionally, Dr.

Com. v. Stevens, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2023

2021, he was convicted by a jury of the prior-mentioned offenses and sentenced, on the same day, to life ____________________________________________ 8Murtaugh testified that she had been given immunity … Our key inquiry is whether the instruction on a particular issue adequately, accurately and clearly presents the law to the jury, and is sufficient to guide the jury in its deliberations. _________

Com. v. Kelley, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2019

A prosecutor's opening statements may refer to facts that he reasonably believes will be established at trial. … Rivers, 644 A.2d 710 (Pa. 1994), recognized that the use of a photograph of a homicide victim (taken when they were alive) to show at trial that they were once “a life in being” is clearly irrelevant as there is no dispute

Com. v. Vo, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2023

jury as follows to clear up any confusion on its ruling: The Court: … I just want the jury to be clear on--in my ruling concerning the telephone records that the detective has testified very clearly … establish that Petitioner was not present at Parx casino during the relevant periods of time.

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

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.

Estate of Eric S. Waite, Appeal of: Lisa D. Waite

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2021

LaPorte, Ph.D., who was qualified as an expert in psychology. … We will reverse any decree based on palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable rules of law.

Com. v. Hargroves, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2021

first sought to admit Officer Bray as a factual witness, id. at 107-112, and then, only later, did the assistant district attorney ask additional questions regarding his professional qualifications to have Officer Bray qualified … It is well-established that a jury is presumed to follow a trial court’s instructions. Commonwealth v. Jones, 668 A.2d 491, 504 (Pa. 1995).

Chase, C. v. Adult Day Services

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2020

Whether the trial court erred when it sustained the trial objection of defendants that [Chase’s] expert Nurse Ingrid Sidorov had not been qualified as an expert in “safety transportation,” thereby precluding … Clearly, Chase was allowed to question Nurse Sidorov regarding the transit logs, without objection, and the logs were published to the jury.

Com. v. Geier, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2020

The testimony Defendant sought to elicit from these two witnesses was clearly within the realm of expert testimony. … The testimony clearly was expert testimony, and no expert report was produced prior to the start of trial.

Com. v. Davis, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2017

The Commonwealth enjoys a qualified privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential source. … In order to overcome this qualified privilege and obtain disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity, a defendant must first establish, pursuant to Rule 573(B)(2)(a)(i), that the information sought

In Re: Estate of Robert M. Mumma

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2014

Qualifying Rule 341 are two rules that arguably pertain to this case, both of which are discussed by Morgan and in Barbara Mumma’s response to Morgan’s motion. … - 20 - J-A18024-14 Order II, in particular, does not clearly direct anything with respect to the specific circumstances of the fractional ownership of various assets.

Com. v. Showell, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2025

[Monica] testified she clearly saw Showell in the video setting fire to her back door. … The court reasoned: [E]vidence of the burned items from the victims front and back door [we]re clearly admissible.

Com. v. Santiago, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2026

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. … Kunish, 602 A.2d 849, 853 (Pa. 1992). 7 As noted, the trial court determined that Santiago’s indecent assault conviction merged with the other crimes for sentencing purposes, leaving four qualifying Tier-III convictions

The Bert Company v. Turk, M.

2021 Pa. Super. 87 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2021

Martin Pritikin, Toward a Coherence in Civil Conspiracy Law: A Proposal to Abolish the Agent’s Immunity Rule, 80 NEB. L. REV. at 9 (2005). … By this May 5, 2017 meeting, the First National Family had clearly adopted Mr. Turk. And Mr. Turk triumphantly disclosed their master plan to Ms. Wallin.

Com. v. Norris, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2021

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … That would qualify as child pornography.