Case law

Com. v. Rosado, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2018

Ordinarily, this would not qualify as a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608, 612 (Pa. … Moreover, we discern no basis to conclude that the court’s decision to sentence Appellant to serve his sentences consecutively was “clearly unreasonable.”

Terminations of Parental Rights to P.B.W.-V.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2021

of the petitioners in the adoption proceeding. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2903; see also Adoption of R.B.F., 803 A.2d at 1199-1200 (remanding for a determination of cause pursuant to Section 2901 and stating, “Thus, absent a qualifying … [Appellants’] testimony clearly and unequivocally established that they had not married before instituting adoption proceedings because of their mistaken belief that Mother’s surname would automatically

Com. v. White, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2020

Appellant has not established the trial court’s ruling was an abuse of discretion, and we do not disturb its consolidation order. … Appellant further alleged it was not established that he was the person depicted in the Facebook photos.

Com. v. Iverson, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2018

the extent Iverson claims he was prevented from raising the issue by prior counsel’s ineffectiveness, his argument fails because “[c]laims relating to neffectiveness of counsel for failing to raise certain issues do not qualify … the issue was not discovered until present counsel reviewed his case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that a claim of ineffectiveness of prior counsel does not constitute an after- discovered “fact” that will establish

Medsger, G. v. Hawaiian Tan

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2017

This clearly includes the facts brought to light through the affidavit of Nathan Medsger and submitted in opposition to the motions filed by Hawaiian Tan and Kuntz. … It is irrelevant at this stage in the litigation whether Nathan Medsger qualified as an expert witness, as the trial court appears to imply.

Schweigart, J. v. Schmalenberger M.D., K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2021

Schweigart has clearly stated how she was damaged by the photo being taken and then anonymously transmitted to her while she lay alone in a recovery room. 3. … Gross negligence has been examined most commonly with regard to cases arising out of medical malpractice involving mental health care providers because in order to overcome immunity for mental health care providers, aplaintiff

Com. v. Grays, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2019

Based on Appellant’s own assertions of innocence, both at trial and before the PCRA court, the record clearly supports the PCRA court’s determination that Appellant would not have pled guilty, as doing so would have required … Appellant contends that trial counsel should have objected to this testimony because the Commonwealth never qualified Dr. Haluska as an expert in the field of pharmaceuticals.

Com. v. Vouvounas, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2025

The first qualified juror, Juror No. 2, was a black person. The court asked her questions based on her answers to the juror questionnaire and invited the attorneys to ask questions. … Although the court analyzed restitution as a mandatory sentence under Section 1106(a) in its 1925(a) opinion, the court clearly stated that restitution was imposed as “a condition of probation” at the sentencing hearing

Com. v. Dunn, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2020

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 … Such evidence must relate to a period at or about the time the offense was committed and must be established by testimony of witnesses as to the community opinion of the individual in question, not

Com. v. Hartsfield, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2025

Appellant claims that the assistant district attorney who authenticated the document was not qualified to do so and that “the appropriate individual to authenticate such a document would be the clerk or prothonotary.” … ruling regarding the admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly

Com. v. Gilliard, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2026

Wood was qualified as an expert in child abuse pediatric medicine. Dr. … Additionally, Gilliard challenges whether M.J.’s testimony established certain elements of each crime.

King, W. v. v. Wallingford

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2025

King further argues that Exhibits 25 and 31, as medical records, qualify under the hearsay exception for business records of a regularly conducted activity. See Appellant’s Brief, at 23-24. King cites Folger ex rel. … 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

Gamesa Energy USA v. Ten Penn Center

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2018

Busch established the course of action TenPC took, as described above, and reiterated that Gamesa was in default in the summer of 2012 after vacating the premises. … Tselepis, 181 A.2d 710, 712 (1962) (finding a statement is properly qualified as an explanation of a course of conduct if it is “evidence as to the reason action is taken[]”).

Com. v. Benitez, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2025

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Significant is the fact that the General Assembly did not require that this prohibited act be directed at a certain number of persons that could qualify as “the public.”

Com. v. Williams, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2021

In order to overcome this qualified privilege and obtain disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity, a defendant must first establish, pursuant to Rule 573(B)(2)(a)(i), that the information sought … We also note that Appellant bears the burden of establishing prejudice. Id. at 210.

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Johnson, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2017

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 … The trial court in Pautentis found that the witness testifying on behalf of the homeowner’s current mortgage servicer could not authenticate the documents or establish their trustworthiness. Id. at 401.

In the Int. of: M.C.K., Appeal of: M.C.K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2025

He baldly asserts that the “YLS was clearly favorable to M.C.K. and clearly material to disposition.” M.C.K.’s Brief at 16 (emphases in original). … The Court determined that this was insufficient to establish physical compulsion.

Com. Scale, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2016

The admission of expert testimony is governed by Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of … [w]e now allow for the possibility that such expert testimony on the limited issue of eyewitness identification . . . may be admissible, at the discretion of the trial court, and assuming the expert is qualified

Com. v. Stone, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2015

J-A08030-15 nearly verbatim from the affidavit of probable cause included with the underlying criminal complaint, suffices to establish the facts underlying this matter: [O]n January 22, 2014, at approximately … In the context of criminal cases, however, the Castillo rule has been qualified.

G.R.R v. C.L.R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2020

Thus, Mother was clearly provided adequate notice that modification of custody was to be at issue at the hearing. See S.W.D. v. … Here, the trial court evaluated each custody and relocation factor and clearly articulated the reasons for its decision in open court.