Case law

Com. v. Gaines, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2020

The Commonwealth retains a qualified privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential source. Commonwealth v. Watson, 69 A.3d 605, 607 (Pa. Super. 2013). … Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly state that issues not raised in the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

Com. v. Gerace, M., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2020

[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. . . . … Clearly, the legislature considered driving with a suspended license a less serious offense than driving under the influence with a suspended license.

Com. v. Palmero, I.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2018

It is well-established that in order to prove the forcible compulsion component, the Commonwealth must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant used either physical force, a threat of physical … Thus, there was clearly forcible compulsion, and no amount of cross examination of the witness would have changed the outcome of the trial.

Commonwealth v. Ross

2012 Pa. Super. 220 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2012

Attorney Dickey explained: The financial circumstances of [Ross] have not changed save for the fact that [Ross’] father and family relatives have compiled monies to hire private qualified death penalty counsel. … The requests for relief, which were pled in the alternative, clearly subsumed and acknowledged the trial court’s discretion to select “any and all relief deemed appropriate.”

In the interest of: T.S.A. Appeal of: J.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2015

made, whether the county agency has filed or sought to join a petition to terminate parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified … “These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” S.B., supra at 978 (citation omitted).

Deberry, S. v. The Estate of Garrison, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2017

It is well-established that “summary judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as … Thus, “to qualify as a bona fide purchaser, the subsequent buyer must be without notice of a prior equitable interest.” Roberts v. Estate of Pursley, 718 A.2d 837, 841 (Pa.Super. 1998).

Com. v. Tanis, J., III

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2016

“A statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution; all doubts are to be resolved in favor of a finding of constitutionality.” … attorney for this appeal; (3) if the defendant is indigent, he has the right to appeal in forma pauperis and the right to appointed counsel; and ( 4) the defendant may have the qualified

Com. v. Scheer, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2025

Based on the foregoing, we agree with the PCRA court that Appellant failed to establish the applicability of the newly-discovered-fact exception. … This Court, relying on J.B., stated: Clearly, under J.B., had [Haines] been adjudicated delinquent at that time, no registration requirement would apply to her.

Com. v. Morris-Carr, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2020

[Appellant] told police that she knew the water gets too hot, so she clearly was aware that the water was a source of possible injury to S.B. … Super. 1985) (rejecting the defendant’s claim that evidence established simple assault and did not establish aggravated assault when the record established the following injuries to the two-year-old victim: “burn marks on

U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. McGowan, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2016

Hollinger, 206 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1965) (in the absence of fraud, the return of service by a sheriff, which is full and complete, is conclusive and immune from attack by extrinsic evidence). … Nocero’s affidavit established how he had access to the information.

In Re:Dille Family TrustAppeal of:Nolan Fam.Trust

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2024

Clearly, the order limiting Appellants status as intervenors is separate from and collateral to the underlying cause, which started with a dispute as to whether Attorney Geer is lawful trustee of the DFT. … Appellants assert, however, that they qualify for expanded intervention into the determination of what assets remain in the DFT after the Beneficiaries attempt to withdrawal all assets from the DFT on February 20, 2019

Com. v. Smith, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2016

assert [that the] trial court’s finding of facts violated both Pennsylvania and federal constitutional search and seizure [sic] when trial judge[’s] finding of facts were [sic] contrary to clearly … In order to establish that trial counsel's representation was deficient, a defendant must establish all of the following three elements, as set forth in Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Strouse, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2024

. §§ 4501-4512, eligible offenders may qualify for lower minimum sentences through their “participation in evidence- based programs that reduce the risks of future crime….” 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4502. … While the PCRA court included the additional step of requiring a separate hearing for Defendant to formally withdraw her pleas, the PCRA court clearly granted the only relief Defendant sought, which was withdrawal of her

In Re: Estate of Fox, G. Appeal of: B.F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2020

Barbara argue[d]4 Norman clearly intended the Family Trust, not the Gertrude Testamentary Trust, and not the Appointed Trust to hold the Florida property. ________________________ 4Barbara has … There, during the parties’ marriage, Rosemary created an irrevocable [Qualified Terminable Interest Property (“QTIP”)] Trust of which her husband, George, was trustee and primary beneficiary and Rosemary

Com. v. Norris, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2023

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … * * * In addition to the restraints imposed by the double jeopardy clauses on a trial court's authority to correct clerical errors, an alleged error must qualify

Schmitt, R. v. Schmitt, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2024

An estate administration was not open, such as by a fiduciary named in Decedent’s will, if one existed, or by the appointment of an administrator duly qualified by statute. … -4- J-A29022-23 in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3323(g) (“Grounds established.”).3 Id.

Gordon, T. v. Herman, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2015

On this issue, our standard of review is as follows: The duty of assessing damages is within the province of the [fact-finder] and should not be interfered with by the court, unless it clearly … It is a small business corporation that if the corporation qualifies the shareholders of the corporation can file an election with the Internal Revenue Service to treat the corporation as a small

Com. v. Nelson, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2018

I'm not sure if Juror No. 12 qualifies as a grandparent. Certainly he's not grandparent by blood. I don't think that there's an issue. … And they were concerned about him being on the jury, whether he was qualified under the rules. The Court: All right.

Milano, J. v. Commerce Square Partners

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2017

These essentially must be established by testimony of the custodian or of another qualified witness.” Ganster v. Western Pennsylvania Water Co., 349 Pa. Super. 561, 504 A.2d 186, 190 (1985). … Thus, the minimal threshold that expert testimony must meet to qualify as an expert opinion rather than merely an opinion expressed by an expert, is this: the proffered expert

Com. v. Moore, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2015

In this respect, he argues that the statement itself is what establishes the conspiracy. The Commonwealth responds that the evidence was admissible under the co-conspirator exception since it established Ms. … Hence, the evidence does not qualify as hearsay because it was not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted. See Pa.R.E. 802.