Case law

Com. v. Legg, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2025

Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985) (there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that a federal court advise a defendant about parole eligibility in order for the defendant’s plea to qualify as voluntary). … Super. 2002) (“though the validity of a guilty plea clearly does not depend on a judicial explanation of parole eligibility, we conclude a plea’s validity may be compromised when counsel issues erroneous advice on how the

Sawyer, H. v. Taylor, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2023

comprehensive agreement covered division of all the parties’ assets including a payment of $100,000 from Husband to Wife and a transfer of various sums from Husband’s 401(k), cash balance plan and IRA account to Wife using Qualified … relief to enforce attorney’s charging lien which, after a hearing, the trial court held that the Austin factors were met because: “(1) there was a significant distribution due to Wife; (2) Attorney Winegrad’s services clearly

Com. v. Johnson, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2018

Further, “[a] witness does not need formal education on the subject matter of the testimony, and may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience.” Id. … Based upon the testimony at the March 2nd hearing Johnson failed to establish irreconcilable difference?

Com. v. Campbell, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2025

To the best of your memory, ma’am, did you ever tell your client that any car - 11 - J-S04035-25 accident that results in death would qualify for third-degree murder under Pennsylvania … This requirement was clearly and accurately conveyed to Appellant through various means of communication.

Estate of Cavanaugh, P., Appeal of: Cavanaugh, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2018

about Decedent’s mental state at trial, [Lee] indicated she was sharp as ever when she moved in with him[,] and when challenged about the inconsistency with the prior deposition referenced above, he qualified … On the whole, [Lee’s] testimony was self-serving and inconsistent; at times when it seemed to bolster his case he remembered things clearly and unequivocally[,] and at times when it seemed to weaken his

Com v. Williams, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2019

And whether [appellant] clearly established his filing was within the 60-day window allowable by [42 Pa.C.S.A. §] 9545(b)(2)[?] [3.] … However, because the petition at issue is Petitioner's fourth petition, he does not qualify for this grace period. See generally, Commonwealth v.

In Re: Douglas, M., Appeal of: Douglas, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2019

Under the PEF Code, [t]o establish incapacity, the petitioner must present testimony, in person or by deposition from individuals qualified by training and experience in evaluating individuals … She clearly did not want that to happen and thus asked her brother to intervene. 18.

Paih, D. v. Noronha, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2017

“It is the function of redirect examination to explain, enlarge upon, or qualify new matter brought out by cross-examination, so that the jury will not receive distorted impression of facts from such testimony.” … Under such circumstances, we cannot deem the trial court’s decision to deny Appellants’ Batson challenge as clearly erroneous; there was no discriminatory intent inherent in Appellees’ reasonable explanation.

Riverview Carpet & Flooring, Inc. v. Presbyterian

299 A.3d 937 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2023

The Longwood Management Agreement required Sodexo to provide Longwood with a qualified General Manager to function as the head of Longwood’s maintenance department. … McCollum quickly established himself as an integral part of the unit turnover process.

In Re: Trusts Under Will of Montgomery, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2020

So it seems that you are qualifying it as a target whereas it seems to me to be more of a cap. (N.T. 135.) … These services were clearly necessary and were rendered by counsel from a highly-regarded law firm.

MJ Test Prep v. Lynch, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2021

Prep within the 50-mile geographical restriction established by the Agreement. … At the time of signing, [ ] Lynch clearly knew of MJ Test Prep.

Zandrowicz, R. v. Zandrowicz, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2016

DISCUSSION It is well-established that agreements between married parties are presumed to be valid. See In Re Ratoney's Estate, 277 A.Zd 791 (Pa. 1971). … In determining the intent of the parties to a written agreement, the court looks to what they have clearly expressed, for the law does not assume that the language of the contract was chosen

Com. v. Barony, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2017

This officer also notes that the end of the stem was longer than stems found in processed marijuana and was clearly cut at one end. … This officer also notes that the end of the stem was longer than stems found In processed marijuana and was clearly cut at one end.

J.E.C., Jr. v. K.A.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2020

. § 794 (1985), covers qualified students with disabilities who attend schools receiving federal financial assistance. … Judge Menges properly weighed the statutory custody factors and clearly articulated his considerations in making the custody award.

Com. v. Ennis, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2016

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 -8- J. … Specifically, he argues that the testimony regarding B.E.’s prior reports of abuse did not qualify for a hearsay exception because the - 17 - J.

Com. v. Stansbury, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2018

The determination of whether an utterance qualifies under this exception is made on a case-by-casc basis. Commonwealth v. Blackwell, 494 A.2d 426, 430-431 (Pa. Super. 1985). … It is noted that Appellant's evidence failed to definitively establish an alibi.

Com. v. Barchfeld, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2018

Barchfeld argues that his threat to shoot Rosing did not qualify as a terroristic threat under the circumstances of this case. Id. at 18-19. … Super. 2000) (noting that “appellant clearly spent a long time reflecting upon his frustrations, and his threats cannot be characterized as less than premeditated and deliberate.

Van Stine, M. v. Carpineta, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2016

In this respect, therefore, we qualify the trial court’s opinion, but not its decision. … This Court conducted a full hearing on the merits on August 27, 2015, at which time this Court assessed the witnesses' testimony and made the determination that a recording clearly had been made in contravention of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Martinez-Colomba, L.V., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2022

Appellant argues the prosecution had no need for the challenged evidence because the Commonwealth was able to establish the history of his relationship with Victim “through multiple text messages between them as well as … We disagree with Appellant that this brief portion of testimony evinced such an overmastering emotional response in the jury that it would have been immune to containment by a jury instruction.

Com. v. James, V.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2014

Section 7508 “is unambiguous, and clearly requires that as long as at the time of sentencing, a defendant has been convicted of another qualifying offense, the defendant shall receive the enhanced … Importantly, “the Commonwealth…does not qualify as a victim as that term is defined in [Section] 1106.” Commonwealth v. Boyd, 835 A.2d 812, 819 (Pa.Super. 2003).