Case law

Commonwealth v. Russell

2007 Pa. Super. 376 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2007

Likewise, Appellant's initial assertion of her right to remain silent was qualified, i.e., she indicated to Detective Rush that she did not wish to speak with him because she was angry with him for arresting her. … As it now reads, the statute is clearly ambiguous without the use of an additional "alleged".

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.

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.

Com. v. Ross, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2023

We find that the trial court’s conclusions are supported by competent evidence and are clearly free of legal error. … Due process clearly attaches, but due process is a flexible concept, incapable of precise definition.

Com. v. Williams, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2019

Clearly, the alleged motivations for the disclosure may remain the same as applied to J.W.’s uncle. … Whether the recorded interview qualified as testimonial is beyond the scope of our decision.

Adoption of: M.G.B., Appeal of: J.N.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2020

Additionally, the court discussed the facts and reasoning pursuant to section (b), stating: In this case, the testimony has established that with respect to … [M]other, there is clearly affection and a … While we recognize that a bond does appear to exist between Mother and Child, see N.T., 8/14/19, at 265 (trial court’s stating “the testimony has established that with respect to the birth [M]other, there is clearly affection

Com. v. Sumter, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2021

Lind is board-certified in pediatrics and child abuse pediatrics and was qualified as an expert in those areas. Dr. Lind consulted and examined T.S. at the hospital. … “Although the EWOC statute does not define ‘course of conduct,’ the phrase is clearly used in that context to differentiate the penalties for single and multiple endangering acts.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. James, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2020

will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. … Furthermore, “a statement, which otherwise qualifies as an excited - 12 - J-S40029-20 utterance, is not precluded from falling within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay

Com. v. Mcwhorter, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2019

McWhorter contends that the lack of consultation qualified as an exception to the PCRA’s one-year time bar; specifically, the newly-discovered fact exception codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) (“the facts upon which … Flores–Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), the United States Supreme Court addressed what an attorney must do during the direct appeal process when the defendant has not clearly conveyed one way or the other whether he wishes

In the Interest of: N.M., Appeal of J.M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2019

Feger”), who was qualified as an expert witness in the field of trauma and attachment in children, and performed an assessment of L.M. in April 2017 at the request of OCY;  Jared … establishes [that] the [Children have] been removed from the home for a period exceeding six (6) months.

Busanic, M. v. Premier Orthopaedic and Sports Med.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2026

testimony that physician’s failure to diagnose totally obstructed artery clearly increased risk of fatality and led to plaintiff’s death). … While Einstein stated that it did not “concede” any of the elements of negligence, the facts clearly bore out that duty and breach were “hotly” contested at trial.

Com. v. Farley, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2019

The expert testimony of a witness qualified in the field of drug distribution, coupled with the presence of drug paraphernalia, is sufficient to establish intent to deliver. … Based on our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s sentence was “clearly unreasonable” and find this issue merits no relief.

In Re: Donald Bany Revocable Living Trust

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2022

Trust” because Settlor “clearly described with particularity the persons he defines as his descendants.” Brief of Appellant, at 15, quoting Orphans’ Court Opinion, supra at 3. … Meter asserts that Settlor’s “use of the word ‘limited’ applies where there is a larger class of individuals that qualify as [Settlor’s] ‘descendants’ . . . but he intended to limit that larger class to only Meter, Meter

Com. v. Hill, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2026

Second, he maintains the Commonwealth failed to establish that the victim’s death was a natural or foreseeable consequence of his conduct. We disagree. … Specifically, he contends that the evidence violated Rule of Evidence 404(b), prohibiting evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, and that it did not qualify as an exception to the rule.

Precision Underground v. Penn Natl. Mutual

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2019

.” ____________________________________________ 3 “Precision was not named as a defendant in [Hammell], as Precision was Hammell’s employer and immune from suit pursuant [to] the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. … If the Amended Complaint failed to establish the foregoing, Penn National would have no obligation to defend these additional insureds.

Escalante, L. v. State Farm Mutual Auto.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2021

Thus, in light of the trial court’s inability to say that a fair voir dire was conducted and a competent and qualified jury was empaneled, it properly presumed prejudice and ordered a new trial. … emphasized that “the inability to assess prejudice in this case causes the error to defy analysis by prejudice standard; to hold otherwise would - 19 - J-A13009-21 immunize

Adoption of: A.J.R., Appeal of: A.A.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2023

totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination. … Specifically, the Orphan's Court did not consider the trauma and impact that befalls achild upon severing the clearly established bond between natural mother and the minor child and how permanently severing

In the Interest of: A.R., Appeal of: R.J.H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2024

But I can’t go back and find a program that’s going to teach a mother who clearly … was not even able to brush her children’s teeth. … evidence, that a permanency goal of reunification was not feasible and established the grounds for an establishment of a goal of adoption at the dispositional hearing…?

Brookside Apartments v. Heilman, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2015

We conclude that the record supports the trial court’s decision that Appellants failed to establish a reasonable accommodation defense. … Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities in any program receiving federal financial assistance.

Com. v. Barosh, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2014

nce failed to establish Id. at 29.) … Clearly, the evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant intentionally set fire to the house.