Case law

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.

Com. v. Velez-Rivera, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2023

In sum, our sentencing laws establish a framework for sentencing. … Section 9781(c)(3), while sentences that fall within guideline ranges are subject a "clearly unreasonable" standard of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9781(c)(2).

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.

Com. v. Sheffer, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2020

Kaufman, who was qualified as an expert in the examination of children who may have been sexually abused, found that the exam of D.N.'s hymen was normal. … And while Sheffer points out that he testified that, unlike A.S., he never saw a condom wrapper in the toilet, this issue clearly went to credibility.

Com. v. Mendez, A., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2021

Karima Fitzgerald, M.D., who was qualified as an expert in the field of general surgery, testified that as a result of the assault, Richard suffered: two orbital fractures; nasal fractures near his sinus, mid-face, and … Further, the photographic evidence presented at trial clearly showed the brutality of the assault, which, combined with Brubaker’s testimony that he heard about a dozen hits, allowed the jury to infer that, even if Mendez

Com. v. Clark, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2016

The court continued the sentencing hearing in order for the Pennsylvania Sexual Offenders Board (“Board”) to evaluate whether Clark qualified as an SVP under the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA … “Predatory” conduct is “an act directed at a stranger or at a person with whom a relationship has been instituted, established, maintained, or promoted, in whole or in part, in order to facilitate or support victimization

Colony, C. v. Doberman Group, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2017

Upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to appellees, we conclude that the trial court’s finding of negligence is clearly supported by the evidence of record. See Yanoviak, 945 A.2d at 224. … Instantly, Judge Kurtz found that both parties “called a qualified consulting forester to testify to the volume and value of the timber harvested in 1996 by [appellants]” and that “both experts were credible[.]”

Walsh, R. v. BASF Corporation

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2018

To rely on sources “predicting risk and establishing causation” as they “do not go hand-in-hand.” Id. at 3. … The record establishes frequent, regular, and proximate exposure to the pesticides at issue herein. Dr.

Com. v. Guerra, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2019

The trial court believes the fear M.S. experienced, along with her various failed efforts to leave, qualify as forced labor. … The trial court does not believe the admitted testimony qualifies as prior bad acts that would require such notice under 404(b)(3).

Com. v. Kauffman, B., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2016

Therefore, Appellant’s verbal threat to commit a crime of violence clearly satisfies the first element of Terroristic Threats. See Campbell, supra at 1219; see also Speller, supra at 201. … to establish the “public” element of Public Drunkenness. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5505.

Com. v. Satterfield, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2020

Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or … Notwithstanding the primacy of the plain meaning doctrine as best representative of legislative intent, the rules of construction offer several important qualifying precepts.

Com. v. Brown, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2021

ruling regarding the admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill- will, or such lack of support to be clearly … Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an

Com. v. McIntire, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2022

The exact treatment conditions would certainly be determined after an evaluation of [Appellant] by a qualified professional. … The [trial] court would, therefore, rely on [the parole department] to establish the specifics of the treatment.

In the Interest of: A.M.P.C., A Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2018

reunify the family need not be made or continue to be 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 … The evidence clearly established Father’s failure to perform his parental duties in the six months prior to termination.

Nicholas, L. v. Kittrell, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

Kittrell properly describes the factors employed by that court in deciding whether to appoint counsel,5 and makes a compelling argument as to why he would qualify under those factors. … preserve issues for appellate review, they serve an equally important function in obviating appeals by affording the trial court a timely - 14 - J-S29018-14 failure to establish

In the Interest of: M.K.H.-C., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2018

totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination. … Based on this testimony, there clearly is some form of bond between Mother and Children. Thus, an evaluation of this bond is necessary before termination is ordered.

Com. v. Reyes, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2017

in limine to exclude certain letters purportedly written by Appellant, where the Commonwealth's witness never saw Appellant write these letters or any other document and where that witness was not qualified … regarding the admission of evidence ‘will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly

Com. v. Rodriguez, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2016

Amber Green, a Forensic DNA scientist working with the Pennsylvania State Police was qualified as an expert and testified in regards to the DNA samples taken from the brick, which was collected at the scene … With respect to Appellant’s aggravated assault conviction under Section 2702(a)(4), aggravated assault is established under this provision when an actor “attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury

Com. v. Williams, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2021

Testimony by Expert Witnesses 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’ … However, the testimony of the witnesses, coupled with the surveillance videos, clearly indicate that [Williams] was the shooter.

Pierce, F. v. CPR Restoration

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2014

holding service upon individual was proper where process was served on adult female in charge who refused to give her name; “in the absence of fraud, a sheriff’s return which is complete on its face is conclusive and immune … The process server clearly stated that he entered Appellant's premises; there was no mention of a parking lot. Id. at 14.