Case law

Com. v. Schofield, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2024

Once it is established that the scientific evidence in question is novel, the burden then shifts to the party offering the evidence. … For these reasons, Schofield failed to satisfy Frye’s threshold step of establishing the expert’s testimony involved novel science.

In the Interest of: M.P., Appeal of: B.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2025

Furthermore, as a participant in the treatment program, Father qualifies for spectrum housing, a county program that covers a significant portion of participants’ rent. Id. … The record clearly establishes that the concerns regarding Father’s mental health that led to the removal and continued placement of Children continue to exist.

Fannie Mae v. Ferreri, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2025

Likewise, this evidence does not establish fraud; in fact, Wells Fargo specifically alleged in the Foreclosure Case that it “directly or through an agent, has possession of the Promissory Note.” … Clearly, Ferreri had ample time for discovery before the trial court issued its summary judgment decision.

Com. v. Miller, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2019

Even if Miller were not precluded from invoking an exception to the PCRA’s time-bar, Miller fails to establish either exception. … Accordingly, Miller has failed to establish an exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements.

Corey, L. v. Wilkes-Barre Hosp. v. PA Phys. Svcs.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2023

A few hours later she was rushed to an emergency C-section, but the procedure was delayed and performed under clearly unfavorable conditions. … As he was qualified in the areas of emergency room medicine and corporate responsibility, a reasonable person could have believed that “they” was the Hospital itself. Mrs. Corey argues that Dr.

Com. v. Rose, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2018

Thus, the dispute centers upon whether Appellant established the newly-discovered fact exception in his petition. … 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

J.K. v. The Hill School

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2017

The structure of Level 3 Offenses section of the Student Handbook clearly provides the headmaster the authority to expel in any substance use case. … As his testimony establishes, it was Mr.

Com. v. Sasse, O.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2020

The form defined “Qualifying Restraining Orders” as: Under 18 U.S.C. 922 firearms may not be sold to or received by persons subject to a court order that: (A) was issued after a hearing which … The court concluded the “evidence clearly support[ed] the conclusion that [the appellant] pled guilty to a portion of the statute which includes the use of physical force as an element,” and thus was disqualified under

In Re: Chen, A., Trust No. 1, Appeal of: Chen, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2018

Chen clearly sought to surcharge the trustees for all the fees that they had paid to themselves, all the lawyers, and any accountant from the inception of the two trusts. Thus, Mr. … Robinson was a specialist in foreign grantor trusts, he never established that there was such a subspecialty in the trusts area. Mr.

Commonwealth v. Leaner

202 A.3d 749 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2019

Collins’ testimony established that Mr. … The highly probative nature of this evidence clearly outweighs any undue prejudice arising from its admission.” Flamer, 53 A.3d at 88.

Com. v. Porka, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2019

Hunt had “already qualified that she can’t answer that question.” N.T., 5/10/17, at 179. 8 Ms. … In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.

Porter, D. v. Toll Brothers, Inc.

217 A.3d 337 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2019

For an averment to qualify as a judicial admission, it must be a clear and unequivocal admission of fact. … * * * It is well established . . . that the burden rests on the party asserting the estoppel to establish such estoppel by clear, precise and unequivocal

Com. v. Gonzalez, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2023

- 17 - J-S08023-23 The Commonwealth did not seek to qualify Officer Mulligan as an expert witness at trial, and instead offered his testimony as a lay opinion. … As Appellant has not established the trial court abused its discretion in allowing this testimony, no relief is due. See Williams, 241 A.3d at 1101.

Com. v. Spada, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2019

Spada contends that a summary offense does not qualify as a crime. However, summary offenses are considered crimes so long as they can be punished by a sentence of incarceration. See Commonwealth v. … This reasoning is well supported by the record and is clearly reasonable.

Com. v. Phillips, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2024

“Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable, or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding the existence of a … concluded that the photo did not fall within the purview of the rule, as it did not depict Appellant committing a crime, and defense counsel made it clear that Appellant’s act of consensual oral sex with another man did not qualify

Com. v. Roper, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2024

In addition, the evidence established that Appellant shot Reid twice in the head and three times in Reid’s back. This evidence is sufficient to establish Appellant’s specific intent to kill. … be reversed absent a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.

Robert v. Chodoff

259 Pa. Super. 332 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1978

Indeed, all the evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that Dr. Chodoff performed admirably in a stress situation of the highest magnitude. . … We have not established that anybody in this case was an alcoholic. “MR. ROSSITER: I withdraw the questions, Your Honor.'’

Com. v. Tomlin, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2019

On August 16, 2005, the PCRA court informed this Court that PCRA counsel had not abandoned Appellant, and this Court established a new briefing schedule. … Appellant is clearly mistaken, as the Disciplinary Board's findings were made public upon the release of its decision in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bruno, 1910 Disciplinary Docket No. 3, on November 13, 2014.

Com. v. Williams, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2018

He was qualified, without objection,3 as an expert in the field of narcotics and narcotics investigations. Id. at 21-23. … Detective Cooper’s conduct clearly and unequivocally informed [Appellant] that he was being officially investigated. This evidence is sufficient to prove his guilt. TCO, 5/14/2018, at 9.

C.E. Pontz Sons, Inc. v. Purcell Const. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2015

Pontz] clearly failed to file timely and appropriate work change orders and [Purcell] clearly observed without objection added work being done by [C.E. … Second, we find Purcell’s reliance on Scott is misplaced because Purcell fails to explain how the parties’ written agreement qualifies as a “public” contract when both entities are private companies.