Case law

Bac Home Loans Servicing v. Viola, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2014

However, the Order clearly stated that the Court sustained [BAC]’s Preliminary Objections to [Viola]’s Counterclaim and dismissed [Viola]’s Counterclaim without prejudice. … every kind, whether or not conducted for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified

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

Com. v. R.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2020

This Court has held that certain nonverbal conduct also qualifies as “contact” under Section 6318. See -7- J-S14022-20 Commonwealth v. … Clearly, there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Appellant next contends that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence, but again, without specificity. In Commonwealth v.

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. Schwartzer, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2016

While the Commonwealth clearly failed to comply with the trial court’s Order to file a brief, the trial court cannot use this failure to grant Schwartzer’s Motion. … [With regard to] a suppression order, we follow a clearly defined standard of review and consider only the evidence from the defendant’s witnesses together with the evidence of the prosecution that, when

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. Watkins, Z.

304 A.3d 364 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2023

The trial court, however, understood that Appellant asserted that the collection and use of the LPR data to monitor his movements qualified as a search under the Fourth Amendment. … See Majority at *12 (stating, “Appellant clearly did not maintain an expectation of privacy for the license plate number”).

Com. v. Lloyd, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2019

The public records rule provides that to qualify as a newly discovered fact, “the information may not be part of the public record.” Commonwealth v. … However, this analysis is both premature and questionable since it does not address the question that Lloyd clearly raised in his PCRA petition of whether the Commonwealth withheld Brady material.

Com. v. Ivy, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2018

To establish whether a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds qualifies as a collateral order, trial courts must now, 2 Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. … Similarly, the guilty plea colloquy fails to establish an interrelationship between the two cases.

In the Int. of: M.W., Appeal of: Y.W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2022

However, even after a child has been adjudicated dependent, a court may not separate that child from his or her parent unless it finds that the separation is clearly necessary. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(3). … Likewise, there was no report or expert testimony establishing that Mother was struggling with mental health issues, or that she was diagnosed or treated by a qualified professional for any mental illness.

Com. v. Reeves, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2019

Contrary to Appellant’s claim otherwise, the detective clearly did not call him evil in this instance. … Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty.

Com. v. Finnecy, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2019

Definitions -7- J-S05022-19 The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly … In his third issue, Appellant contends that PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that Appellant qualified for the RRRI program pursuant to unpublished memorandums issued by this Court.

Com. v. Brenner, I.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2016

As such, the trial court concluded his statements qualified as an exception to the hearsay rule. … As mentioned in our examination of the sufficiency of evidence for Murder in the First Degree [], the use of a deadly weapon, which a gun clearly qualifies as, on a vital part of a human body establishes

Com. v. Jones, M., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2018

The reasons articulated by the [c]ourt, in conjunction with the [c]ourt[’]s careful consideration of the arguments of counsel and [Appellant’s] own statements, clearly reflect this [c]ourt[’]s determination … Indeed, his right to intrastate travel was qualified by his own criminal conduct, not an arbitrary distinction drawn by the trial court.

Burns, G. v. Fahrner, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2022

statements in Pennsylvania; (6) his lawsuit is based on her ____________________________________________ communication in furtherance of . . . the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern is immune … Appellee clearly implies that Appellant slipped something into the drink that he mixed for her and she imbibed, which caused her to lose consciousness.

Gulla, R. v. Howard Hanna Company

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2018

A confidential relationship for purposes of the UTPCPL can be established by a showing of either “overmastering influence” or of “weakness, dependence or trust.” Basile v. … The Gullas’ expert opined that the exchange of a principal residence did not qualify for section 1031 tax treatment; both the new and the old property must have been held for investment or business use to qualify.

Com. v. Stargell, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2021

Second, Appellant argues that the trial court’s restitution order is illegal because Queen Appliance, a business entity, did not qualify as an enumerated “victim” under Pennsylvania’s restitution statute (18 Pa.C.S.A. § … See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1926 (“No statute shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly”).

In the Int. of: M.E.F., a Minor Appeal of: M.F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2014

Mother has clearly shown her incapacity as a parent, and this incapacity has left the Children without parental care or control. … “These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” In re S.B., 943 A.2d at 978 (citation omitted).

Com. v. Stiver, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2021

Significantly, at the time of trial, the Commonwealth's evidence clearly established that the victim, David Hoover, was brandishing abaseball bat, even possibly striking the blue Ford Fusion vehicle in which the Appellant … Kapelsohn is eminently qualified in these areas, based upon review of his Curriculum Vitae.

Reed Associates v. Tekton Development Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2017

Our review is governed by the following principles: [S]ummary judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and … -8- J-S59031-17 Tekton’s president’s “suggestion” hardly qualified as legal assignment of any rights.