Case law

Com. v. Lapham, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2020

According to Lapham, there was “no evidence presented at trial to establish [he] was criminally negligent.” Lapham’s Brief at 10. … Both the Commonwealth and [Lapham] presented photographic evidence that the lanes are clearly marked.

Com. v. Vega, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2021

To establish a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness, a defendant must establish that the witness existed and was available, that counsel was informed of the witness’s existence, that the witness … '° Even assuming that Ballas was competent to give this testimony, Ballas was clearly not qualified to determine the location of Defendant's cell phone and, by extension, the whereabouts of Defendant in relation to the cell

In the Interest of: C.T., a minor, Appeal of: K.T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2016

- 12 - J-A35043-15 discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside impartially. Id. … The custody opinion and order was entered of record without objection, and was clearly relevant as it established the legal relationship between the parties as to

In Re: Adoption of: D.J.T., Appeal of: M.M.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2025

Whether the [Orphans’] Court erred when it found that the evidence presented by the Agency clearly and convincingly established grounds for involuntary -4- J-S03006 … A qualified pre-adoptive family has been identified by [the Agency], and the Child is happy in the pre-adoptive home and has bonded with the foster parents.

Best, K. v. Cresheim Valley Realty

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2026

Any corrective action taken in order to qualify the property for such certification shall be performed in compliance with applicable laws. … The FCEUA “establishes what shall be considered unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices with regard to the collection of debts.” 73 P.S. § 2270.2.

Com. v. Morris, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2024

Instead, he simply reproduces verbatim the same discussion in his amended PCRA petition that the PCRA court has clearly rejected. … E, was his identification positive or was it qualified by any hedging or interactions? F, during the course of this case, did this witness identify anybody else as being the perpetrator?

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.

Com. v. Saleem, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2022

A controlled search, yes, if there is qualifying language to allow that type of search, yes. … The affidavit of probable cause attached to the application, however, clearly evinced police were only investigating alleged law-breaking in Apartment One.

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.

Com. v. Lawrence, E

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2021

3.Whether the evidence was insufficient to establish criminal conspiracy to commit robbery? 4. … The jury clearly chose to believe the Commonwealth’s evidence and reject Appellant’s self-serving testimony. Thus, no relief is due.

Com. v. DelaRosa, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 5, 2024

While possession of marijuana itself is no longer per se illegal, possession is still illegal for those not qualified under the Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”). Commonwealth v. … -8- J-S17023-24 “Absent the application of one of a few clearly delineated exceptions, a warrantless search or seizure is presumptively unreasonable.” Id.

Com. v. Ramirez, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2017

Finally, at trial, Investigator Kevin Hasser, qualified as an expert in the drug[] trade, testified that the material found in Appellant’s bedroom was indicative of a drug dealer. … 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 is

Com. v. Gibson, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2015

The picture clearly depicted Gibson wearing a dark hooded sweatshirt. Shortly before 2:00 p.m., Gibson met Paulinda Moore, a long- time acquaintance, in the shopping center. … Jerome Gibson, Bucks County Case No. 5119 of 1994 for any information that qualifies under Brady v.

Emerick, C. v. Erie Insurance Exchange

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2026

whether, or not, Appellant’s award should be limited to the cost of an asphalt roof, as opposed to a slate roof, because the slate roof tiles used in the original construction of Janet Emerick’s home and their installation qualified … Pfister, through his testimony, established that slate roofs and asphalt roofs are not functional equivalents. Id. at 19.

Ramalingam, G. v. Keller Williams Realty Group

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2015

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. … This subsection shall not be construed to allow an associate broker, salesperson or qualified association to hold deposits or other escrows. 63 P.S. § 455.608e(k).

In the Int. of: T.H.G., Appeal of: T.A.H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2026

Therefore, the order does not qualify as an interlocutory order appealable as of right. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(c). … It is established that DHS no longer supervises Child; custody has been awarded to C.S. on a permanent, albeit modifiable, basis.

Com. v. Bodle, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2017

Specifically, a petitioner must establish that “the underlying claim has arguable merit; second, that counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and third, that Appellant was prejudiced.” … Based on the foregoing, we agree with the PCRA court that trial counsel clearly had a reasonable strategic basis for electing not to call Weigle and Bodle on appellant’s behalf.

Com. v. Washington, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2025

In fact, such a waiver is clearly the very basis upon which the entry of a plea of guilty is premised. … Significantly, [Appellant] fails to demonstrate how these qualify as facts that were unknown to him. PCRA Ct. Op. at 7-8 (citations omitted).

Com. v. Sromovsky, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2019

Applying the Blockburger test, the official oppression statute clearly includes elements not present in the simple assault statute. … Third, the prosecutor’s comment was not clearly referencing Appellant’s intent at all.

In the Interest of: M.M.-A., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2017

The qualifying that Dr. … Gootnick was clearly qualified pediatric radiology. pursuant to Frye.