Case law

Com. v. Major, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2021

judges are honorable, fair and competent, and although we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do -9- J-S15029-21 so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified … He further contends his sentence was “clearly unreasonable and excessive as Appellant was only charged with statutory crimes . . . this case was not a case of rape, or any charges that alleged forcible compulsion, threat

Mousios, L. v. West End Fair Association

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2017

deemed to include every subsidiary issue contained therein which was raised in the trial court; this provision does not in any way limit the obligation of a criminal appellant to delineate clearly … The party requesting recusal bears the burden of producing evidence that establishes bias, prejudice, or unfairness.

Friedman, S. v. Bryn Mawr Hospital

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2017

Hence, “the collateral order doctrine is to be construed narrowly, and we require every one of its three prongs to be clearly present before collateral appellate review is allowed.” Id. at 1126 (citation omitted). … As such, the import of the interest at play herein is not as firmly established as that at issue in Shearer.

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. Delvalles-Vincente, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2020

Rather, the statement qualifies as an excited utterance. … Because Appellant cannot establish prejudice, his claim fails.

In the Int. of: D.J.Y., Minor Appeal of: L.D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2014

[Great Aunt] testified that [] she and [Great Uncle] take [Child] regularly to the pediatrician and that [Child’s] immunizations are up to date. … Clearly[,] it is in [Child’s] best interest to do so. Trial Ct. Op. at 11-17 (internal citations omitted).

C.L.L. v. C.T.B. v. T.D.L. & J.L.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2019

Indeed, the certified record, which includes Mother’s sworn acquiescence, belies her contention that her assent was temporary or qualified. … If Mother’s accusations were to be established as fact, it would raise a legitimate concern that Paternal Grandparents are not interested in exercising their new-found authority evenhandedly.

J.A.D. v. J.M.F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2019

Upon review, we agree that the testimony does not clearly support these findings. … Super. 1987): The law regarding the qualification of witnesses as experts is well established.

In the Int. of: G.S., Appeal of: M.F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2026

The court established the Children’s permanency placement goals as reunification with concurrent goals of adoption. … the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants the involuntary termination.”

Com. v. Adams, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2020

Defense counsel did not object but simply agreed to the parameters established by the trial court. … Jenkins more than adequately established that he was on probation and could be sent to prison for not cooperating with the Commonwealth. [Appellant] did not need to establish that Mr.

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.

Eynon, S. v. United States Steel Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2025

It is well-established that: A motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a demurrer. … We will affirm the grant of such a motion only when the moving party’s right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt that the trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise.

Crew, D. v. Penn Presbyterian Medical Center

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2018

Second, the aforementioned printouts, which Appellant clearly obtained just before he responded to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in January 2016, were not verified as accurately representing those websites as they … Hoover, 331 qualify or diminish the impact of direct examination"); Rose may A.2d 878, 882 (Pa.

Roderick, R. v. Roderick, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2019

(9) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage. … The $7,000,000 sum chosen by Westinghouse clearly corresponds to Husband’s life expectancy, not a payment guaranteed for only 60 months.

Com. v. Comond, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2019

merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly … It is well-established that a party is bound by an admission of fact. For an averment to qualify as a judicial admission, it must be a clear and unequivocal admission of fact.

The Lamar Cos. v. Brad Aric, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2015

Therein, it disputed Lamar’s contention that, because Lamar clearly was a tenant in possession of at least a portion of the Property, PDS was on constructive notice of Lamar’s potential claim to the Property. … However, in order to qualify as a bona[-]fide[s] purchaser, the subsequent buyer must be without notice of the prior equitable interests of others. Overly v. Hixson, 82 A.2d 573 (Pa. Super. 1951).

Com. v. Pacheco, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2019

Whether [Pacheco] waived [his challenge to the denial of suppression of the real-time CSLI evidence] when it was clearly set forth in his [Rule] 1925(b) statement? II. … It is well-established that an appellant must properly specify in his concise statement the error to be addressed on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa.

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. Tyner, V.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2018

However, the record is not clear that Trooper Bradly offered, or was necessarily qualified to offer, opinion testimony that Appellant independently was impaired by alcohol and or independently impaired by marijuana. … However, a sufficiency challenge is not so clearly devoid of merit to warrant classifying this appeal as frivolous, especially in light of the Gause decision that was addressed by neither party.

Com. v. Gerber, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2017

Indeed, it is well-established that “an investigating police officer who did not witness an accident may not render an opinion at trial as to its cause unless he/she has been qualified as an expert.” … Therefore, we could also conclude Gerber failed to establish the second prong of the ineffectiveness test. See Michaud, supra.