Case law

Com. v. Brake, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2016

The court directed Attorney Jarmon to determine whether (1) Appellant’s “appellate rights should be reinstated,” (2) Appellant qualified for a PCRA time-bar exception, and (3) the issues raised in Appellant’s September … To be entitled to PCRA relief, a petitioner must establish “[t]hat the allegation of error has not been previously litigated or waived.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3).

Com. v. Emigh, Jr., T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2014

Once I do that, the question is who is qualified to introduce it. … found 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 so as to be clearly

Schluth, W. v. Krishavtar, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2020

Therefore, it was clearly foreseeable and Krishavtar could not have reasonably expected anything else. … However, the language of the paragraph does not contain the qualifier “totally” and nowhere in the documents is “remedied” so qualified.

Barbetti, V. v. Afzal, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2026

Barbetti] had clearly stated in 2022 that she would not agree to a global release for any amount of money due to her continuing business relationship with [Mr.] and [Mrs.] … Barbetti did not seek to qualify the scope of the release. Id. (quoting N.T. Hearing, 7/1/24, at 3). The court then analyzed the evidence regarding the parties’ conduct following the settlement conference.

Com. v. Cephas, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2026

Further, Rule 702 provides that a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert … Rather, we look to whether the appellant has forwarded a plausible argument that the sentence, when it is within the guideline ranges, is clearly unreasonable.

Strub, M. v. Wesol, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2026

While it clearly rescinded the contract, it also clearly referred to an “assessment of monetary damages” and awarded - 33 - J-A27042-25 Strub reimbursement for fees she expended … We agree that Strub’s evidence of lost rental income was speculative: while Strub clearly desired to rent the Property following closing, she did not establish that Wesol’s breach forced her to forgo an opportunity to rent

Com. v. Rehm, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2015

extent it established beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of these offenses. … In Pennsylvania, it is clearly established that an admission by an opposing party can be used as substantive evidence. Pa.R.E. 803(25); Alessandro v. W.C.A.B. (Precision Metal Crafters, LLC}, 972 A.2d 1245, 1252 (Pa.

Com. v. Lovell, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2015

The lawfulness of a search would turn on a highly sophisticated set of rules, qualified by all sorts of ifs, ands, and buts and requiring the drawing of subtle nuances and hairline distinctions … The court determined that the plants’ location clearly fell within the curtilage of the appellant’s home, and the appellant had a legitimate expectation of privacy therein. Id.

Com. v. Van-Arsdale, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2015

Under these circumstances, the record clearly demonstrates the Defendant had the opportunity to commit the crimes of which he was convicted. … If he is unable to continue to afford the 8 services of current counsel, upon application to the Court, appellate counsel will 9 be appointed to represent the Defendant at no charge if he financially qualifies

Com. v. Illarionov, V.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2017

THE COURT: So then you do not qualify for free a attorney. All right. … If we are to uphold such a waiver, the record must clearly demonstrate an informed relinquishment of a known right.

Com. v. Bozeman, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2019

Thus, we review the PCRA court’s determination that Bozeman cannot establish his claim of after discovered evidence. … Initially, we note that Stern’s summary of what Durrett allegedly told him is clearly inadmissible hearsay. See Commonwealth v.

Thomas, W. v. Evans, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2018

Evans was negligent in these omissions without first establishing that the standard of care required these steps. … I mean, there is clearly an element of risk with surgery, and there is clearly an element of risk with thoracic surgery, and I think that the pulmonary artery is probably the thing we respect the most.

Com. v. Dolan, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2019

Therefore, the only way to act upon Officer Stere’s reasonable suspicion was to find an officer who was qualified to handle the incident, which they did as quickly as was possible under the circumstances and in conjunction … Further, the relevant form clearly indicates that it is merely making a noncompulsory “request.” See Commonwealth’s Ex. 1.

Com. v. Iris-Williams, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2016

A review of the May 20, 2015 transcript clearly reveals that the Commonwealth was under the impression that the matter was listed for a status conference. … Thus, we found that the appellant’s speed “was not so excessive to qualify as a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others,” and determined that, because the appellant’s speed was not so excessive

Com. v. Bell, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2020

Despite the warning, Appellant failed to turn into National Beef and crashed his vehicle into a trench across the road, an area clearly marked with traffic cones. Id. Ms. … We reject Appellant’s contention and rely on the qualifying phrase of Section 305(b), highlighted above. A subsequent statute, 75 Pa.C.S.

Com. v. Kearns, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2015

They conclude that they are immune from criminal prosecution because a person cannot fraudulently convert his own property. … admissibility of evidence claim, our standard of review is as follows: 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

Com. v. Bayle, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2017

Accordingly, this Court qualified Detective Rutherford as an expert in drug identification and drug sales. [N.T. 10/3/16, p. 36]. … Based on the facts and testimony, this Court found that the Commonwealth did meet each and every element needed to establish PWID.

In the Int. of: J.M., Appeal of: J.M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2021

Next, turning to Father’s remaining challenge to Child’s removal, Father argues error on the part of the trial court as DHS failed to establish clear necessity for removal. Father’s Brief at 13-14. … The record clearly presents evidence that it was contrary to Child’s welfare, safety, and health for him to remain in Father’s care.

Com. v. Polzer, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2016

Bugosh v, Allen Refractories Co., 932 A.2d 901, 914 (2007) 4  The statement made by Petitioner clearly does not qualify as a present sense impression. … A review of the record in this case clearly indicates that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

Com. v. Melendez-Perez, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2018

Super. 2013) (“The Commonwealth enjoys a qualified privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential source.”) (quotation omitted). … Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts