Case law

Com. v. Taylor, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2023

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 … Accordingly, we agree with the Commonwealth that the document qualified as self-authenticating under Rule 902(4). See Pa.R.E. 902(4); Chapman, supra.

Com. v. Pascual, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2025

It is clearly ____________________________________________ 5 After the trial court overruled Appellant’s discovery objection a second time, Appellant made a nearly inaudible statement that the court reporter was unable … In order to qualify as Brady material subject to mandatory disclosure by the Commonwealth, an appellant is “required to identify and explain the actual evidence at issue.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Bozek, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2022

-4- J-S23013-22 determined that Appellant was qualified for placement in a nursing home. Id. … Appellant clearly could not maintain his daily life necessities. Id.

In Re: Est. of C.E.P., Appeal of: R.J.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2024

He claims the mild disagreements regarding discretionary spending and hoarding does not establish C.E.P.’s welfare is endangered and intervention is necessary. … services for a fee to the incapacitated - 22 - J-S06027-24 person or any other person whose interests conflict with those of the incapacitated person except where it is clearly

Houser, D. v. Ford Motor Company

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2015

Hensler is not a medical expert, his qualifications certainly render him more than qualified to offer an opinion about the forces involved in an air bag deployment and whether those forces would expose a human being to … Moreover, he contends his request “for leave to provide an expert report was reasonable and should have been granted particularly where the record evidence clearly identified the [D]ecedent’s cause of death, and no evidence

Com. v. Day, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2026

Absent the application of one of a few clearly delineated exceptions, a warrantless search or seizure is presumptively unreasonable. … Applying Buie, this Court held that “[t]he sweep in the instant case complies with [the] standards as established in Buie.” Id. at 598.

CSAA Affinity Insurance v. Dagit, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2021

Super. 2014) (stating that this Court’s standard of review in a declaratory judgment action is limited to determining whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law). … Further, "where the criminal proceedings [do] not establish the extent, if any, of [an insured's] conscious awareness of his action or the substantial likelihood of the results, [a guilty plea] cannot conclusively establish

Huertas, D. v. El Bochinche Restaurante

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2023

record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a “business,” (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified … This is but one of the four factors a plaintiff must establish for a negligence claim. See Massaro, 280 A.3d at 1035-36.

Com. v. Kane, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2020

In rendering its holding, this Court examined various Rules of Evidence, including Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 704,9 and observed that Rule 704 “clearly permits both expert and lay opinion testimony on issues that ultimately … But the trial court’s blanket conclusion that the entire trajectory of DHS’s investigation had probative value in Appellant’s criminal case is not sufficient to establish relevance pursuant to Pa.R.E. 401.

Com. v. Reyes, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2017

Clearly, defendant's conduct was premeditated and deliberate. Defendant's conduct further established that he possessed malice and a specific intent to kill the decedent at the time of the shooting. … Bond, 539 Pa. 299, 305, 652 A.2d 308, 311 (1995) (noting that a gun is "clearly a deadly weapon"); Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Powe, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2023

Redfield St[.], Philadelphia, PA [where] the warrant failed [to] establish a nexus between the crime in question and the residence and failed to set forth any facts establishing probable cause … court considered evidence presented at the sentencing hearing, including a victim impact statement from S.L. and the Commonwealth’s argument that [Appellant] has done nothing in his life that would qualify

Com. v. Long, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2019

We will reverse the trial court’s order only where the court has clearly abused its discretion. Id. … Appellant’s counsel objected to this testimony because the Commonwealth had not provided him with the victim’s mental health treatment records and the victim was not qualified to give an expert opinion. Id. at 101.

In the Interest of: M.T., Appeal of: C.T. and M.T.

101 A.3d 1163 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2014

family need not be made or continue to be made, whether the county agency has filed or sought to join an petition to terminate parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified … Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in terminating parental rights of the above-named minor child, C.T., where no abuse or neglect was clearly alleged relative to

Berks Counseling Center v. Community Care

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2018

We may only reverse if the court “clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Id., at 42. … Community Care identifies two specific breaches on the part of BCC that it believes should not qualify for substantial performance.

Com. v. Hynson, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2017

The standard of review for the admission of evidence is: 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 … checklist was to serve ongoing administrative purpose; as qualified business record created and maintained for neutral purpose, content of checklist was not testimonial evidence; admission of checklist did not violate

Com. v. Ibrahim, I.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2017

Jennifer Sears, a forensic biologist with NMS Labs, was qualified as an expert in forensic biology and the analysis of DNA by stipulation. … We have repeatedly rejected their theories of individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk.

Com. v. Brooks, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2018

The male victim’s testimony as to timing is vague at best, and it establishes only that the offense occurred sometime prior to the spring of 2013. … Clearly, the trial testimony as summarized above is quite sufficient to refute Defendant's first three claims of insufficiency for purposes of this

Com. v. Watts, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2024

“To establish ineffective assistance of counsel for the failure to present an expert witness, [an] appellant must present facts establishing that counsel knew or should have known of the particular witness.” … Clearly, the medical records related to the victim’s death have been available, and were available, to [Watts] for several years prior to trial.

Duffield, W. v. Legend Spine

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2026

Wagener’s Brief, at 7-8.5 Our standard of review for a trial court’s non-jury verdict is well- established. … It is not our role to pass on the credibility of witnesses, as the trial court clearly is in the superior position to do so. Ramalingam v. Keller Williams Realty Grp., Inc., 121 A.3d 1034, 1041 (Pa.

Com. v. Garcia, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2019

Lastly, Petitioner appended a preliminary report authored by Pietro Miazzo, M.D., which petition at issue is Petitioner's second petition, he does not qualify for this grace period. See generally, Commonwealth v. … By employing the past tense in writing this provision, the legislature clearly intended that the right was already recognized at the time the petition was filed. Commonwealth v.