Case law

Com. v. Schneider, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2015

Shawn Hilbert was qualified as an expert in the area of fire investigation and determination of origin and cause and testified for the Commonwealth. Id. at 97. … Having presided over the trial in this matter, the jury clearly believed the Commonwealth’s witnesses and evidence over that which was presented by the Defense.

Com. v. Smith, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2018

A Brady claim may qualify as an exception to the PCRA time-bar, as the information learned by the petitioner, i.e. the information that is said to have been withheld by the prosecution, can qualify as “facts . . . … Herein, the facts were clearly known to Appellant in 2005, and the PCRA court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of his claim.

Com. v. Cooper, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2015

[d]istribution was dropped in the prosecution of Commonwealth witness Alvin Herring because the case lacked sufficient evidence, and all where the witness was not qualified to testify to same, and where … trial court’s admission of evidence is well-settled: 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

In Re: T.L.H., Appeal of: D.L.W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 2021

The Petitioners[’] performance of such parental duties included: a) engaging a pediatrician to examine [] Child and update her lack of needed immunizations; b) purchasing private health care insurance for [ … Again, testimony established that the court’s recitation of the facts was incorrect.

Com. v. Tildon, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2023

Some of these issues are clearly contradicted by the record. … Appellant has not proven that any of this alleged evidence would qualify as Brady material.

Melchiorre, P. v. 422 Development, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2017

Generally, courts must give plain meaning to a clear and unambiguous contract provision unless to do so would be contrary to a clearly expressed public policy. … But its fatal flaw is the failure to establish that the change of use of one retail establishment is a change of use of the entire shopping center.

Massar, B. v. Massar, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2022

-3- J-A22013-21 sponsored 401(k) accounts on the same 55%-45% basis in favor of Wife; and since the estate was insufficient for an immediate offset, (2) cooperate in the preparation, and equally divide the cost, of qualified … (8) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage.

Com. v. Wilson, U.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2024

Additionally, CI Smith attested that he is a qualified expert in the field of narcotics, and he has become familiar with the drug culture in the City of Reading. Id. at 4. … Here, the search warrant was valid in authorizing a search for marijuana, as CI Smith clearly provided probable cause that marijuana would be found in Appellant’s vehicle.

Com. v. Cotton, D., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2022

Based on these circumstances, we cannot conclude that Appellant has established the sentence imposed was unreasonable. … As such, we conclude Appellant failed to establish that his underlying claim had arguable merit, and we need not address his claim further. See Commonwealth v.

Arrowhead Conveyor v. Giuseppe's Finer Foods

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2020

Because Raybuck could not establish the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous, this claim fails. … Although Arrowhead established evidence of undercapitalization, it did not establish any of the other Lumax Industries factors to the extent necessary to set aside the factual findings below.

Pena, J. v. Gran Palma, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2020

Specifically, he claimed that Appellants had violated their “non-delegable duty to protect their patrons and insure the presence of qualified, mature and conscientious security” for the protection of, inter alia, Mr. … Accordingly, this Court concluded that “the record clearly shows that the [insured] has not acted in a manner that would have enabled it to rely justifiably upon legal representation by the insurance carrier.”

Com. v. Seaton, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2015

Appellant further asserts that his filing the instant PCRA qualifies under the governmental interference and after-discovered fact exceptions to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(i) and (ii). … Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001), as establishing a “Coss exception” to the PCRA’s eligibility requirements is misplaced.

Com. v. Young, D

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2023

Taylor, 283 A.3d 178, 188 (Pa. 2022) (“squarely reject[ing]” Taylor’s assertion that a judicial bias claim must be cognizable under state habeas corpus because the claim did not qualify for review under a PCRA timeliness … It was clearly untimely where this Court already affirmed the dismissals of at least eight prior PCRA petitions from Appellant on timeliness grounds. See supra pgs. 4-5.

Com. v. Fields, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2020

In order to qualify for relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors in 42 Pa.C.S … [Collins] … clearly has a “meaningful chance of survival” to meet his minimum sentence, as he will be 47 years of age when he reaches his minimum sentence.

In Re: K.R.J., a Minor Appeal of: N.J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2022

In her first issue, Mother does not claim that CYF failed to establish grounds for termination under § 2511(a). … She is up to date on her immunizations. She is in a safe environment with the kinship resource with whom she has developed a parental bond.

Com. v. Serrano, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2024

We have explained that a claim has arguable merit where the factual averments, if accurate, could establish cause for relief. … Appellant further argues that, “[t]his is clearly technical type testimony, implying to the jury that the FCCs came from the AK-47 that was never recovered.” Id.

Starr Indemnity v. Brownsville Marine v. Benchmark

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2019

That opinion clearly states, “Benchmark . . . has a duty to defend Brownsville against the underlying complaint filed by . . . Sardinia-Garcia.” Opinion, 10/12/18, at 20. … -8- J-A26019-19 (requiring “order refusing a request for an injunction” to qualify as interlocutory appeal as of right under Rule 311(a)(4)).

Com. v. Bucher, L., Sr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2015

Therefore, he qualified under the Sentencing Code to be resentenced to total confinement as part of the revocation. … -8- J-S60008-14 It is clearly stated in the Sentencing Code not only that the court may revoke a defendant's probation if appropriate

Com. v. Brown, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2019

“[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. … Expert testimony is governed by Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702, which provides as follows: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may

Com. v. Rose, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2019

Evidence is relevant -3- J-A06004-19 if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case or tends to support a reasonable inference regarding a material fact … Initially, we note that the general rule is a failure to remember does not qualify as a reason to introduce a prior inconsistent statement.