Case law

Com. v. Robinson, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2017

In determining whether a person’s actions constitute criminal negligence one must obviously consider the entire situation; and we hold that the determination whether those actions qualify … We acknowledge that although Appellant’s accident occurred during the daytime with no hazardous weather or road conditions, Appellant was clearly intoxicated.

Com. v. Bille, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2015

Admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. … Toe board shall establish standards for evaluations and for evaluators conducting the assessments.

State Farm Mutual v. Dooner, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2018

Based on our plain reading of the policy, it is clear that neither a vehicle owned by the policyholder nor an auto shown on the declarations page qualifies as an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle. … -7- J-S17003-18 clearly looks to ownership of the vehicle the accident occurred in, and not who was driving it.

Com. v. Rodriguez, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2019

Edwards continued that he saw the victim, [Appellant] and [Velez] arguing and moving around outside, but that he couldn’t see them clearly. Mr. … Edwards admitted that he was inside the bar and did not clearly see the events that occurred outside the bar. Additionally, Mr.

Abrougui, A. v. Abrougui, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2026

Father produced a “Qualifying Separation Determination” dated October 9, 2024, from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry. Id. at 11 (Exhibit 3). … Super. 2003) clearly stands for the proposition that [a d]e [n]ovo hearing requires “full consideration of the case anew, [where] parties must be permitted to present evidence in support of their respective

Adoption of N.M.T., Appeal of: M.G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2018

Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and abused its discretion in concluding there was no legally qualified adoptive father currently seeking to adopt [] [C]hild in the within matter? V. … While the trial court ultimately denied the TPR Petition, section 2313(a) and L.B.M. clearly state that counsel must be appointed in an involuntary termination proceeding.

Jones, J. v. Pine Creek Hills LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2024

In response, PCH argued, inter alia, that the Easement qualifies as an easement appurtenant and passed by operation of law and by deed to PCH, and that the failure of PARC Development to use the Easement by installing a … Super. 1978) (“It is well established in Pennsylvania law that in order to show an abandonment of a right-of-way or easement created by deed, the evidence must clearly show some conduct on the ground by the holder of the

In the Interest of: I.D.N. a/k/a I.N., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2018

It is well established that: ____________________________________________ 2 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2910. … light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination.

Com. v. Tillman, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2024

We directed the PCRA court to determine if Appellant qualified for appointed counsel. … On July 24, 2023, the PCRA Court held the ordered hearing, determined Appellant qualified, and appointed current counsel to represent Appellant.

Fielding, G. v. Wayne Memorial Hospital

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2025

. §§ 425.1-425.4, “is designed to foster candor and frankness in the creation and consideration of peer-review data by conferring immunity from liability, as well as confidentiality . . ..” Leadbitter v. … As the order involved here is a discovery matter, by definition preliminary and in addition concerned with resolution of collateral issues, clearly no finality is implicated. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. v.

J.T. Thomas Homes v. Destefano, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 2026

Additionally, the DeStefanos’ evidence established that the entire home must be re-mortared. … merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly

Khalil, A. v. Travelers Indemnity Company

273 A.3d 1211 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2022

She clearly did, since Travelers was a defendant in that action. … Prothonotary Date: 4/18/2022 ____________________________________________ 10 We note that in cases similar to this, other courts have held that the attorney-client relationship establishes privity.

In the Interest of: J.L. a/k/a S.L., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2015

The testimony of the social worker established that there is no parental bond between Mother and Child. … “These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” In re S.B., 943 A.2d at 978 (citation omitted).

Hernandez, J. v. Independence Constr. Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2025

It was insinuated by Hernandez that Hare had purchased the company, MSI (Minority Services, Inc.), and not changed its name, as a ploy to qualify the company as a DBE. See N.T. … Thus, the trial court clearly erred in allowing Hernandez to cross-examine Hare on ICC’s performance of its SEPTA contracts.

Com. v. Cruz, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2014

The robberies and shooting of Raymond Shook were also admissible to establish consciousness of guilt. See Commonwealth v. … Clearly, appellant intended to place the victims in fear of immediately serious bodily injury in an attempt to get them to turn over the car keys.

Com. v. Rice, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2018

Allowing the safe into the residence qualifies as an overt act. In addition, Ms. … The court ruled that the testimony would be limited to the purchase on the day before the incident, because “[i]t’s clearly within the time frame.

Com. v. Hart, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2026

At the ensuing jury trial, D.D., E.K., and multiple detectives and officers, including Detective Parkinson, established the above facts. … The trial court is free to use its own expressions as long as the concepts at issue are clearly and accurately presented to the jury. Commonwealth v.

In the Int. of: K.S., Appeal of: C.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2026

Walker, 523 A.2d 782, 783 (Pa.Super. 1987) (finding that an appellant who was “not a named party” in a custody action qualified as an “aggrieved party” under Rule 501 due to her participation and “indispensable” involvement … Clearly, our legislature did not exclude from parents the right to petition to modify a custody order entered in a dependency proceeding.

Hennessey, C. v. Rom, W. v. Outercurve

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2015

Harrell, 65 A.3d 420, 430 (Pa.Super. 2013); see also Pa.R.E. 702 (adopting the Frye standard in subsection (c) and stating “A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education … It is established that, “In the cases of a written contract, the intent of the parties is the writing itself.

Com. v. Tillman, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2024

We directed the PCRA court to determine if Appellant qualified for appointed counsel. … On July 24, 2023, the PCRA Court held the ordered hearing, determined Appellant qualified, and appointed current counsel to represent Appellant.