Case law

In the Interest of: D.R.-D., Appeal of: J.R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2023

O’Hara was qualified as an expert in the area of child and forensic psychology and he testified that although Mother was generally cooperative during the evaluation process, she did not assume responsibility for her circumstances … credible; Mother was incarcerated for 194 days of Child’s first three years of life; Mother has not obtained appropriate, safe housing in that her housing in Allegheny County has been unstable and her housing in Erie not clearly

Com. v. Idrrissa, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2016

The suppression hearing established the following facts: [Appellant] was arrested on February 4, 2009, and interviewed by [Det. Rivera]. Det. … Clearly [Appellant] was not held for any great length of time prior to the interview and the questioning was of a very short duration.

Com. v. Douglas, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2024

However, after she applied, she was denied on the basis she did not have “enough offenses” to qualify. Id. … Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or

Com. v. Davis, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2016

However, our Supreme Court has clearly articulated that “to constitute facts which were unknown to a petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence,” so as to qualify for the newly discovered … The petition was untimely, and Appellant fails to establish that it fell within an exception to the one-year time bar.

Com. v. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, V.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2023

These facts clearly establish that [Rodriguez- Gonzalez] and Vij both had a common plan for [Rodriguez- Gonzalez] to shoot at the group that had beaten [Samuel]. … Because Officer Aitken was not qualified as an expert, Rodriguez-Gonzalez maintains the testimony was improper.

Application of MS Hershey Med. Ctr.

407 Pa. Super. 565 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1991

. §§ 7601-7612 (Purdon Supp.1991), was promulgated to promote voluntary blood testing to limit the spread of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). 35 P.S. *573 § 7602. … The issue of under what circumstances the identities of those testing positively for AIDS should be disclosed should be left to those who establish public policy on matters affecting the health of this nation.

Com. v. Metts, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2015

[The trial court] issued an order on March 14, 2014, directing the Delaware County Office of the Public Defender to determine if Appellant would qualify for representation. … It is well-established that there are three categories of interaction between citizens and police officers.

Com. v. Wellman, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2025

The evidence clearly established that Wellman intended to employ the firearm criminally by using it to kill Hill. See Commonwealth v. Buford, 101 A.3d 1182, 1189 (Pa. … The gunshot wound causing his death unquestionably qualifies. See Commonwealth v. Robertson, 463 A.2d 1133, 1136 (Pa.

Com. v. Rosario, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2022

Jones, 876 A.2d 380, 385 (Pa. 2005) (“if a petitioner raises allegations, which, even if accepted as true, do not establish the underlying claim . . . , he or she will have failed to establish the arguable … It opined, “[t]he PCRA statute does not require that the strategy be effective, but merely that trial counsel had a reasonable basis for his decision, which is clearly the case.” Id.

Com. v. Briggs, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2015

Thus the murderer would likely be a person whose presence in the cornfield at some relevant time could be established. … The technologists are not qualified to review and release results. * * * Q.

Com. v. Carter, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2023

Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will … The sentencing court also credited Appellant with the full time available to the instant matter in order for him to qualify for drug abuse rehabilitation as soon as possible while imprisoned, as was explicitly requested

In the Int. of: A.B., Appeal of: F.W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2022

Thus, “the import of the Act is to require that the basic integrity of the record- keeping is established,” and “as long as someone in the organization has personally observed the event recorded, the evidence should be … The court may not separate the child from the parent unless it finds that the separation is clearly necessary. In re G.T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa.Super. 2004).

Commonwealth v. Kleinicke

2006 Pa. Super. 48 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2006

In other words, under Pennsylvania law, the minimum sentence serves as a baseline for possible early release. [11] Thus, the Pennsylvania legislature establishes the statutory maximum possible punishment for an offense. … As such, it clearly violated the principle enunciated in the earlier decisions.

Com. v. Yale, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2019

Adding the qualifier “only” drastically changes the meaning of the quotation, which itself details a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition, for finding the evidence insufficient. Robinson, supra at 1158. … because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill- will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly

Com. v. Groff, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2020

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … The “nudity” qualifier does not create a subjective standard requiring people to guess at its meaning.

Com. v. McGarvey, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2018

A19038/18 The trial court set forth the following: The bench trial held on September 1, 2017 established the following facts. … Appellant further maintains that the victim’s testimony that resulted in his harassment convictions “qualifies as mere presence and routine, rather than intent to harass.” (Id. at 15.)

Com. v. Silva, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2019

Id. at 10-11; see also id. at 11 (arguing that Detective Harnish lied to Silva by indicating that an assistant district attorney was watching the interview, and by stating that there was medical evidence establishing that … If it is the latter, it would not qualify as an unequivocal request for an attorney[,] nor an indication that ____________________________________________ 3 Silva failed to cite to any relevant legal authority in

Com. v. Lewis, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2019

Samber has extensive training and experience and was qualified as an expert in the field of drug analysis and identification. … Clearly, more investigation could have, and should have, been performed in this case.

The Bert Company v. Turk, M.

257 A.3d 93 · 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. Hydock, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2020

-3- J-S64025-19 On appeal, the Commonwealth raises the following issue: “Whether, when a motorist makes a turn, from one street to another, past a stop sign qualified … Section 3334 clearly requires a motorist turning his or her vehicle on a roadway to “giv[e] an appropriate signal.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 3334(a).