Case law

In the Int. of: L.A., Appeal of: N.O.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2021

The trial court’s decision to permit a child to either remain with his present caretaker(s), or to temporarily transfer custody to a qualified agency or individual, is subject only to the express limitation that the disposition … The record established that DHS attempted on multiple occasions to provide services to Mother to prevent Child’s removal. (N.T. 04/07/21, pg. 42).

Com. v. Griggs, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2025

It contends that our legislature’s chosen language indicates an intent to qualify only the most culpable for felony grading: The base offense of criminal mischief can be committed with several different states … The legislature clearly intended a combination of the actor’s mens rea and the amount of loss actually caused to govern the seriousness of the offense.

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. Grier, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2015

In addition, the Court noted that all burglaries qualify as aggravating circumstances for capital sentencing purposes. Id. … The statute clearly contemplates the potential for confrontation and, as such, the risk of a violent encounter is direct and immediate and neither remote nor speculative.

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. Yockey, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2025

Our decision on whether Appellant qualifies as one of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment is guided by this Court’s decision in Farmer. … See Range, 69 F.4th at 98.4 Accordingly, Appellant’s stalking conviction establishes that he was constitutionally disarmed under the rationale of Rahimi, as applied by this Court in Farmer. ____________________________

In the Int. of: R.R.S., III Appeal of: C.R.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2020

Whether the trial court erred in permitting the opinion testimony of the caseworker on the issue of parental bond … between Father and the Child[ren] where the caseworker was not qualified … The testimony clearly established that the trauma and behavioral issues that each child suffers would return and increase should they be reunited with parents at any time in the foreseeable future.

Com. v. Espada, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2022

The expert testimony of a witness qualified in the field of drug distribution, coupled with the presence of drug paraphernalia, is sufficient to establish intent to deliver. Commonwealth v. … The sentence is not clearly unreasonable and any challenge to the trial court’s exercise of discretion is frivolous.

Com. v. Nelson, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2024

Clearly, he must not have had notice of today. That’s all I can assume at this point. … The transcript does not establish when defense counsel attempted to reach Appellant or for which trial term these attempts were made.

Commonwealth v. Hall

2010 Pa. Super. 79 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2010

However, the true purpose behind the order was clearly to support the decedent's children and not to rehabilitate Appellant. ¶ 13 Moreover, the decedent's children were not victims in this case. … loss of support sustained by Decedent's children has a close enough nexus *1149 to Appellant's crime to be eligible for restitution under the Crime Victims Act, then Decedent's children and their loss of support should qualify

Wheeler, A. v. Mon Valley

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2015

The second rule is that “cross-examination may embrace any matter germane to the direct examination, qualifying or destroying it, or tending to develop facts which have been improperly suppressed or ignored … Alfred Wheeler testified that these money orders ____________________________________________ 4 Our standard of review of the grant or denial of a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court clearly and palpably

Haas, P. v. Haas, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2019

Clearly, as the December 1, 2017 order does not dispose of all claims, it is not final.4 The December 1, 2017 order, in response to several pre-Master Hearing motions, clearly contemplated subsequent proceedings before … The order appealed does not meet all three prongs necessary to establish a collateral order.

Com. v. Parker, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2026

The [c]ourt simply did not need to hear the out-of-court threats to establish that [Parker] was in fear of his life.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/30/25, at 7. … This action clearly contradicts the purpose of subsection 505(b)(2)(ii), and, thus, Parker is not warranted in using deadly force in self-defense.

Com. v. Pepe, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2018

Appellant, however, alleges his innocence and contends that his instant petition qualifies as a motion for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to Section 9543.1. … Motions for post-conviction DNA tests, while considered post-conviction petitions under the PCRA, are clearly separate and distinct from claims -5- J.

Eastern Steel Const. v. International Fidelity

2022 Pa. Super. 149 · 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 the Interest of: A.M., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2015

Clearly, Appellants’ right to parent their children is a vested right. … As in R.T., the present situation clearly involves a vested right to parent one’s child.

Brown, D. v. The End Zone, Inc

259 A.3d 473 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2021

The consent order of July 24, 2012 required The End Zone to comply with various security measures, including but not limited to hiring appropriately qualified security officers and to performing criminal … This Court was able to determine that the appellant had filed separate notices of appeal, finding the documents were “clearly distinct” based on the differing time stamps and their location on each document. R.

Com. v. Bodden, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2016

In essence, unlike Walker, this was not a case where the sole evidence to establish Defendant's guilt was simply Ms. Hom's testimony. … Neither the United States Constitution nor the Pennsylvania Constitution requires that sentencing should be a game in which a clear mistake by this Court means immunity for Defendant.

In the Interest of: B.B.G., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 2018

Attorney Pugh clearly represented Child’s best interests in this matter. … Eckhardt, the orphan’s court concluded: In this case[,] the testimony clearly established due to a lack of any evidence other than the one visit [Father] had with [Child], it was clearly established that

Com. v. Watley, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2020

In any event, we add that Appellant failed to establish that his Brady claim could establish a time-bar exception under the PCRA. … The Commonwealth notes that “[g]overnment officials clearly did not prevent Appellant from raising this claim previously, because he actually did raise this claim previously.” Id.