Case law

Casper, D. v. Halstead, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2017

We may only reverse upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Id. … Lieberman would be qualified as an expert. N. T. at 9, 11. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in concluding that Dr.

Com. v. Drayton, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2020

Moreover, establishing this allegation is hindered by the reality that Appellant failed to call plea counsel as a witness at the PCRA hearing. … obligation to show that at the time he was agreeing to the plea, had he known that there was a risk that he should have had to go back into the state system for a matter of days or months, long enough to qualify

Com. v. Davis, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2017

In holding as such, the Court found that the exception for filing an appeal nunc pro tunc in non-negligent circumstances is meant to apply only in unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly … established that she attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable and unavoidable events precluded her from actually doing so.

In Re: Adoption of S.M., Appeal of: S.M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2018

In this case[,] the testimony clearly establishes that there is affection[,] and the birth parents care for and interact with [] [C]hildren. … In this case[,] the testimony clearly established that there is affection[,] and [the court finds] that there is a minimal parental bond between birth parents and [Children;] however, [the court finds] that

Com. v. Jones, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 2016

Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the … Generally, we have determined that three months does not qualify as recent under the aforementioned standards. See Robinson, 128 A.3d at 268-269 (collective cases discussing recency in inferring guilty knowledge).

Timmonds, M. v. AGCO Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2021

With respect to the first Althaus factor—the relationship between the parties—AGCO asserts that Timmonds was neither the purchaser of the tractor, nor a “trained, qualified[,] or intended user of it.” … is immune from suit under [s]ection 303(b) of [the Act].”

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.

Com. v. Bogarde, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2023

Bogarde claims this proves the search “was clearly conducted for purposes of investigation and not for the protection of [Bogarde] or the Pennsylvania State Police.” Bogarde’s Br. at 16. … However, the question is not whether the search the police conducted qualified as a proper investigatory search.

Hupp, D. v. Wheeland, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2018

The other large assets are [Wife’s] pension of $38,377.98 as her marital portion established by the Master. … Clearly, [wife] does not have a one hundred percent interest in the marital residence. [Wife] was entitled only to a credit up to the extent of her interest in the property.

Com. v. Browndorf, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2015

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has established that: .. … That is clearly not analogous to the factual scenario under consideration in the case sub Judice.

Com. v. Bonaparte, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2016

An instruction will be upheld if it clearly, adequately and accurately reflects the law. … the law is clearly, adequately and accurately presented to the jury for consideration.

Com. v. Delgado-Melendez, A., Sr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2017

Finally, at trial, Investigator Kevin Hasser, qualified as an expert in the drug[] trade, testified that the material found in Appellant’s bedroom was indicative of a drug dealer. … Appellant stresses that there was no evidence that he ever touched the drugs, or that he even knew they were in the bedroom, as they “were not exposed items that were clearly visible.” Id. at 13, 14.

Com. v. Brown, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2018

Such a claim does not qualify under the after- discovered evidence exception. Carr, 768 A.2d at 1168. … Sentencing judge failed to acknowledge that petitioner was clearly abandoned in the most crucial phase of a possible appeal when petitioner clearly asked for an appeal on his behalf in open court.

Com. v. McCall, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2016

It does say something about qualifier and ratio, qualifier ratio to uses some material to confirm, and it says down at the bottom Oxycodone, and there’s [sic] numbers. … “[T]he 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.” Commonwealth v.

MB Financial Bank v. Rao, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2020

In the instant case, the language of the Lost Note Affidavit and testimony presented by MB Financial established the following. … Clearly, if MB Financial did not own or hold these documents, it would not have been able to produce them.

Com. v. Wright, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2016

Accordingly, trial counsel sought to establish through Dr. … Defendant's claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness should be rejected because the claim that counsel waived is clearly without merit.

Com. v. Sun, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2022

The failure to establish any of the three prongs is fatal to the claim. Id. at 113. I. … And, therefore, it qualifies as a deadly weapon. ....

Com. v. Mannepuli, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2015

N numerous witnesses that established the complaining witness lied, evidence that ' ·id·' established the complaining witness lied, evidence that established the complaining witness … To qualify as exculpatory evidence, the newly discovered evidence must tend "to establish defendant's innocence of the crimes charged, as differentiated from that which, although favorable, is merely collateral or impeaching

Com. v. Corliss, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2021

-8- J-S53038-20 Contrary to Corliss’ interpretation of the law, the PCRA clearly does encompass exactly the types of claims that he now asserts. … Corliss has offered no logical explanation for why he could not have acted sooner to establish that the report exonerates him.

Com. v. Williams, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2020

As these cases illustrate, the difficulty that frequently arises in e-mail and text message cases is establishing authorship. … [Officer] Ananea was qualified as a crime scene processing expert, and not an expert in forensic science or blood pattern evidence.