Case law

Halbleib, J. v. Tag Towing & Collision

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2019

This Court has held that we may review an appeal in the absence of a properly entered judgment where, as here, “the order from which a party appeals was clearly intended to be a final pronouncement on the matters discussed … “For an averment to qualify as a judicial admission, it must be a clear and unequivocal admission of fact.

Pier 3 Condo v. Khalil, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2025

However, the Argument section of the brief raises multiple and distinct claims that are neither set forth in, or fairly suggested by, the Statement of the Questions Involved nor clearly delineated from the other claims raised … Khalil takes the email out of context and, furthermore, ignores that the attorney qualified his answer by both reminding her that his relationship with the Association was as counsel in a separate litigation in which she

In the Int. of: K.B., Appeal of: DHS

2025 Pa. Super. 21 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2025

Addison stated he made Mother aware she would not be able to “have her kids back” until her housing situation stabilized, N.T., 6/3/24, at 16, which clearly showed Child had remained in care. … - 18 - J-A25036-24 established Uncle failed the mandatory clearances. See N.T., 2/26/24, at 13.

Com. v. Ortega, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2017

According to Ortega, “it is plain from the record that the trial court clearly relied heavily on the mother’s statement[]. … CONCLUSION The assessments show that Defendant suffers from Paraphilic Disorder, a condition that qualifies as a "mental illness, disorder, or abnormality."

Com. v. Lynch, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2016

Clearly, in finding Appellant guilty of Delivery of a Controlled Substance, the jury believed the testimony of the Commonwealth's witnesses and accepted the Commonwealth's evidence to the extent it established beyond a … The Commonwealth enjoys a qualified privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential informant. Marsh, 997 A.2d at 321; See Commonwealth v. Roebuck, 681 A.2d 1279, 1283 (Pa. 1996).

Com. v. Constantini, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2017

While the arrest warrant does not contain the same qualifying language as the Constable Handbook and Pa. R. Crim. … The evidence also established that Mrs.

Com. v. Lowman, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2017

While the arrest warrant does not contain the same qualifying language as the Constable Handbook and Pa. R. Crim. … The evidence also established that Mrs.

Schnizer, A. v. Crafted Supply Company, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2026

Further, Crafted insisted that the facts contained in the second amended complaint clearly indicate that Mr. … ____________________________________________ qualify as a judicial admission, it must be a clear and unequivocal admission of fact.

Candelaria, A. v. Hospital of The University of PA

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2022

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … See 43 P.S. § 953 (“The opportunity for an individual to obtain employment for which he is qualified . . . without discrimination because of . . . sex . . . is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right which

Quivers, S. v. Manzetti, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2019

The panel noted “[e]ach expert witness clearly and unequivocally established the necessary component of liability in his area of expertise[,]” and the “slightly cumulative nature of the intersecting testimony was not so harmful … Yodice was not qualified to opine on intraoperative care,15 only that the redaction of his direct testimony created confusion. As such, Quivers is bound by that determination.

D.J.H. v. J.H.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2019

Husband then moved back into the left lane and followed Wife’s car so closely that she could no longer see the grille of his vehicle in the rearview mirror, but could clearly observe that he looked angry and that his expression … During the time in which Husband had exclusive possession of the [marital] home, he was routinely photographing and video recording Wife’s daily life in behavior that qualified as stalking.

Com. v. Irving, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2024

“[A]n alleged error must qualify as a clear clerical error (or a patent and obvious mistake) in order to be amenable to correction.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Borrin, 12 A.3d 466, 473 (Pa. … Appellant further argues, [t]he detectives also told Appellant he would retain his rights, despite that clearly not being the case.

Com. v. Martin, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2018

“Admission of evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Cain, 29 A.3d 3, 6 (Pa. … Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty.

Com. v. Potter, M

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2015

Namely, in finding that Murphy was prejudiced by counsel’s failure, our Supreme Court stated: [Murphy] was clearly prejudiced by counsel's performance. … Therefore, he has not established that Mr.

In Re: M.A.O.R., a/k/a M.O., Appeal of: V.R.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2019

CYS did not present any witness in support of the exhibits’ admission, let alone “the custodian or other qualified witness.” See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108(b); Pa.R.E. 803(6)(D). … Thus, the High Court held that it was error for the orphans’ court to admit the exhibits without first establishing the proper foundation to support the business records exception.

D.B. and D.B. v. J.W., T.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2015

Specifically, [J.B.] received three immunizations after Mother relocated to North Carolina, and [L.C.] was treated at the dentist for a few cavities. 44. … Appellants assert that Maternal Step-Grandfather clearly acted in a parental role for the Children for an extended period of time.

Com. v. Lebron, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2015

He must also establish that the issues raised in the PCRA petition have not been previously litigated or waived. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3). … Here, Appellant contends that he qualifies under the newly discovered facts exception. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 2-4). However, Appellant fails to explain or point to any newly discovered facts. (See id.).

Com. v. Archacki, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2018

Thus, we will focus our attention on whether the issues raised qualify as a “substantial question”6 for our review. … Appellant’s Brief at 24. 8 The record clearly shows otherwise.

Com. v. Lemus, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2021

Whether the conviction was obtained and sentence imposed in violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, and the rights guaranteed by the privileges and immunities clause specifically … This fact is clearly established by the Verdict Slip. Each “act” of possession and delivery was distinguished by date, time, and/or different third party involvement.

Kammerer, W. v. Kammerer, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2019

Where the rules of law on which the Orphans’ Court relied are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court’s decree. … (quoting ____________________________________________ 5 For examples of established exceptions, see Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230, 1234 (Pa.