Case law

Com. v. Savage, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2018

In reviewing the denial of a recusal motion, we apply an abuse of discretion standard while “recognizing that the judge [her]self is best qualified to gauge [her] ability to preside impartially.” Commonwealth v. … As to the method used for calculating its statistics, this Court believes it has clearly explained the nature of its calculations.

Com. v. Bey, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2020

Thus, because the instant matter clearly does not contain the “deliberate concealment” of evidence found by the Supreme Court in Smith to have established bad faith on the part of the prosecution such … For an averment to qualify as a judicial admission, it must be a clear and unequivocal admission of fact.

Diaz, A. v. Kilby, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2016

[The Kilbys] claimed that Diaz made unauthorized investments, failing to disclose substantial risks and inflating [the Kilbys’] net worth to demonstrate that [the Kilbys] were qualified [] for the risk. … Therefore, “[t]he award of an arbitrator … is binding and may not be vacated or modified unless it is clearly shown that a party was denied a hearing or that fraud, misconduct, corruption or other irregularity caused the

N.J.D. v. F.T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2025

Our review of the trial court’s amended custody order and the accompanying clarification order reveals that the trial court did not clearly resolve whether the parties’ custody schedule would allow for the Children to … events where they were “establishing relationships with their peers inside and outside of school” in Middletown, where they resided with Mother.

Adams, N. v. Miller, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2021

He testified that it was “very clearly the truth” that the DEP and the township had allowed the construction to happen even though it was not within the regulations and ordinances. Id. at 101. … Confronted with his deposition testimony, he qualified that he had only had an allergic reaction to the sawdust.

In the Int. of: W.G., Appeal of: B.P.-G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2025

Co., 421 A.2d 1047, 1049 (Pa. 1980) (stating, “[t]he extreme action of dismissal should be imposed by an appellate court sparingly, and clearly would be inappropriate when there has been substantial compliance with the rules … 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

Com. v. Pinchock, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2016

The board shall establish standards for evaluations and for evaluators conducting the assessments. … Mano has been qualified as an expert and has done 2 Examples under training section for Brenda A. Manno MSW, LCSW (Comm.

Com. v. Lucas, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2018

The Superior Court disagreed with this Court's analysis and reversed, stating: "Because a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault both qualify as `crimes of … In addition, the jury was not clearly informed of the intent element for the respective predicate crimes, during the criminal conspiracy instruction. Commonwealth v.

Swepi LP v. Wood, H. and B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2016

Our standard of review is that “the trial court’s order will be reversed only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion.” Id. … The “reasonably” qualifier is important: there is no ambiguity if one of the two proffered meanings is unreasonable. See Murphy v. Duquesne Univ.

Com. v. Collins, V.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2023

The trial court granted the motion, finding the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause for the vehicle stop. Id. at 6. … He emphasizes it was only the second time the detective was recognized as an expert, and that he “clearly had a bias in favor of the Commonwealth.” Id.

Com. v. Johnson, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2018

Instead, the court heard Stinson’s testimony, as well as testimony from the Commonwealth, and concluded that Stinson’s testimony did not qualify as “after-discovered” evidence that would warrant a new trial. … Second, Stinson’s testimony also clearly failed to meet the requirement that [the] after-discovered evidence would likely result in a different verdict at a new trial. Id. at 363.

Com. v. Ritchey, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2023

Thus, entrapment was not necessarily established. Furthermore, even Appellant’s self-serving version of events failed to establish his entrapment defense. … - 23 - J-A02010-23 Assuming arguendo that Appellant preserved this claim and that the conduct he alleges qualifies as outrageous,11 the only evidence that suggests that

Com. v. Bellman, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2021

The record clearly belies this claim. … 145. 9 The parties voluntarily reached the stipulation, at the suggestion of the trial court, as a means of avoiding the introduction of potentially prejudicial evidence by the Commonwealth regarding Appellant’s prior, qualifying

Com. v. Mathis, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2018

5 voluntariness of the plea is established." … Clearly, the ballistic evidence strongly corroborates the specific intent to kill needed to prove Fust Degree Murder.

In Re: Adoption of: L.B.M., A Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2016

and reunify the family need not be made or continue to be made, whether the county agency has filed or sought to join an petition to terminate parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified … Quite clearly Mother had not substantially complied with the permanency plan.

Carl, T. v. Noonan, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2015

[We] may disturb the order of the trial court only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. As with all questions of law, our review is plenary. … Failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which he bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as

Com. v. Verticelli, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2023

“The court is free to use its own expressions, provided it clearly and accurately conveys the applicable legal concepts at issue.” Id. … In the absence of the sentencing order, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove that his robbery conviction qualified as a crime of violence under Section 9714(g).

Com. v. Cook, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2018

As in Boyer, there was other evidence establishing Appellant’s guilt. … Pennsylvania law provides that, in order to qualify for relief under the PCRA, the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated

Rice, K. v. Bollinger, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2017

However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clearly stated that, when " ... the evidence fails to establish the requisite retained control, the determination of liability may be made as a matter of law." … In Beil, the Court clearly rejected a similar argument by Plaintiffs that retained control was established through the College's hiring of MPS outside of the general contractor.

Selective Way Insurance v. Hospitality Group Services, Inc.

2015 Pa. Super. 146 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2015

Selective asserts, however, that its claim regarding the timeliness of its declaratory judgment action qualifies as an exception to the mootness doctrine, permitting this Court to decide the issue on its merits. … As Selective identified several bases that potentially negated its duty to defend and/or indemnify Hospitality Group in the Nemcheck Action in its July 31, 2007 letter, all of which were clearly apparent on the face of the