Case law

Com. v. Clark, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2023

II don't use that extra qualifier, qualifier, but that is to say it simply simply cannot be. PROSPECTIVE PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. … clearly abused its discretion."

Com. v. Guyer, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2024

The decertification court is clearly wrong. See Commonwealth v. … Defendant claims the decertification court appropriately “made its decision after witnessing a classic ‘battle of the experts’ where two qualified witnesses reached opposite conclusions.” Id. at 7.

Com. v. Shearer, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2019

In particular, Appellant -7- J-S46028-19 sought to introduce testimony from his mother “to establish that she did not have a younger son.” Id. … Fuller during his testimony do not qualify as a fact previously unknown to Appellant.

Com. v. Bell, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2017

Our law has recognized that there is a “qualified privilege to preserve the informant's confidentiality in order to protect the flow of information from informants and thereby maintain the public's interest in effective … The so-called informant was now clearly a witness to the crime as well. This transaction took place on May 11, 1990, but [Payne] was not arrested until December 10 of that year.

Baran, J. v. George Weston Bakeries

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2019

Weston instructed [Appellant] to sell his distribution rights to a qualified purchaser within ninety days, with Weston operating [Appellant’s] business, for his account, pending the sale. … Specifically, Appellant argued that “the evidence produced at trial by both [Appellant] and [Weston] clearly establishes there were no repeated breaches under Section 4.1 of the [Agreement] which constituted a chronic breach

Com. v. Spong, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2019

Van Aken qualified as an “enumerated person” is not at issue, and, as noted, neither is the fact that she suffered a bodily injury. At issue is Spong’s intent. … The jury was free to believe Spong’s testimony, and they clearly did not. Rather, the Commonwealth presented testimony that Spong threatened Ms. Van Aken.

Com. v. Rigo, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2016

“When a victim actually sustains serious bodily injury, the Commonwealth can, but does not necessarily have to, establish specific intent to cause such harm.” Burton, 2 A.3d at 602. … The court clearly explained this to Appellant, who refused to continue the matter to allow his motion to be heard.

In Re: L.B., Appeal of: J.H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2019

[Father] has no prior established relationship with [C]hild. … The evidence clearly established aggravated circumstances as to Father, as his parental rights to another child were involuntarily terminated, and he has been convicted of aggravated indecent assault where the victim was

Donatelli, A. v. Haas, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2022

With respect to the first prong pertaining to timeliness of the petition to open, “[t]he law does not establish a specific time period within which a petition to open a judgment must be filed to qualify as time[ly].” … thought Attorney Senich was representing him; (2) he “did his best” to find another attorney; (3) he was homebound during the relevant period, which “made retaining counsel quite difficult”; and (4) he was pro se and “clearly

Straw, J. v. Fair, K. v. Pittsburgh Lubes

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2018

that it was entitled to summary judgment because “there was no evidence that [it] breached any duty owed to the Plaintiffs” and, relatedly, because, under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, it was entitled to “limited immunity … Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Marhunova, H. v. Fitler Construction Group

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2026

For a duty to be established, the first question, therefore, is whether there has been an undertaking to render services. … [Doctor] Wayne Ross, qualified by [the c]ourt to testify for the Plaintiff as a forensic pathologist and neuropathologist, testified that [Decedent] was conscious when he hit the ground and that it takes

Com. v. Clagon, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2022

disc. evi. clearly stating Bailey is willing to help in any way that he could? … To qualify for the new fact exception, “a petitioner need only establish that the facts upon which the claim is based were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.”

Com. v. Heaney, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2014

Furthermore, an appellate court will not reverse a trial court's determination that a witness is qualified to testify as an expert unless we find an abuse of discretion; Commonvvealth v. … Since we clearly indicated to counsel that we would base any rulings on the deposition testimony, we submit that Defendant has waived most of his claims that we erred in permitting Dr.

Com. v. Culbreath, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2024

The testimony adduced at trial clearly established that Culbreath digitally penetrated N.R.’s vagina. … The Torsilieri II Court first recognized that the parties agreed that “the clearly expressed legislative purpose, findings, and declaration of policy all establish that [] the General Assembly desired to enact a civil,

Ansell, T. v. Charah Solutions

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2024

Did the trial court err on the record by holding that the [Plaintiffs] established irreparable harm? 7. … Cause an exceedance of the ambient air quality standards established by §2101.10 of this Article; or 3.

Nationstar Mortgage v. Beaver-McKeon, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2016

discretion when it did not apply Rule 803(6) and 42 Pa.C.S.A. in its determination of the plaintiffs [sic] exhibits or the plaintiffs [sic] corporate designee to be a ‘qualified … witness’ to establish circumstantial -4- J.

Glenn, L. v. Smith, A. v. Glenn, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2018

Finally, at the conclusion of direct examination, Crane agreed that any aspect of the home that he rated as “poor” needed to be addressed by a qualified individual. … Pa. 2004).11 To establish either common law fraud or deceptive conduct, a plaintiff must establish an intent to mislead.

Fulton Bank v. Mermelstein, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2020

Boyle was qualified as an expert on real estate in the area, and expressed his opinions within a reasonable degree of professional certainty. … Autumn Lane then presented the testimony of Marie Shelton, who was qualified as an expert real estate appraiser currently[, as well as] on May 29, 2014.

Com. v. Lane, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2016

The explanation provided by the appellant was clearly relevant, in light of defense counsel's questions, to further establish ownership of the clothing and did not serve to prejudice the appellant. … establish bias, prejudice, or unfairness, but instead, an understandable concern for protecting the appellant's rights.

Roberts, B. v. Elder, E, III.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2025

We have a summary judgment rule in this Commonwealth in order to dispense with a trial of a case (or, in some matters, issues in a case) where the party lacks the beginnings of evidence to establish or contest … Two qualified experts reached differing opinions about how the accident occurred and what defects were involved; this, by definition, constitutes disputed issues of material fact.