Case law

Com. v. Gray, W., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2023

Clearly there were no exigent circumstances as law enforcement had secured the premises to conduct the search.”). We disagree. … However, we find that Appellant has failed to establish a substantial question.

Com. v. Barksdale, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2018

Evidence to establish this fact is admissible after consideration of two distinct factors that coalesce to establish its relevance and probative value. Commonwealth v. Nocero, [] 582 A.2d 376 ([Pa. … Her death left Barksdale’s self-serving statements immune to refutation by the victim, thus extinguishing his potential criminal exposure.

Com. v. Alvarez-Rodriguez, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 2025

After a a qualifying examination by Attorney Jubelirer and the court, Appellant Appellant testified on his own behalf. … establishing aa voluntary consent....

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.

Adoption of V.W., etc., Appeal of: V.W., father

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 2017

Another of Father’s goals was to visit consistently with Child to establish a bond. Father claims to have “maintained regular contact with” Child. (Father’s Brief, at 13). … -9- J-S66044-17 Father concedes that he has not completed the goals that CYS established to permit him to reunite with Child.

Barbosa, P. v. Chatham Acres Healthcare Group

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2019

The Trial Court concluded that the information assembled during Administrator’s investigation and available to Chatham Acres did not establish that Barbosa had left the premises, nor did it establish a timeline for Barbosa … Cmwlth. 1981) (a writing recorded approximately 12 weeks after underlying event failed to qualify as a recorded recollection), Appellants argue the information was not “fresh,” and further assert that because Ms.

Outterbridge, D. v. Abington Memorial Hospital

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2025

Hayek qualified as such." such.' … Outterbridge. 21 21 and she was not and she qualified by not qualified by this Court to

Com. v. Waters, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2015

That’s clearly prohibited as to argument. … We hold Appellant has not established the error was so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial. In Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Tirado, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2020

The court concluded that the evidence also established Tirado’s identity as the perpetrator. … A gun, which is clearly an instrument of crime, was not used for a lawful purpose in the killing of Victim.

Com. v. Nichols, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2017

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. … The weapon recovered from Appellant’s vehicle was an automatic handgun with a barrel length of 3 ¾ inches, Trial Court Opinion, 4/8/2016, at 10, which qualifies as a “firearm” under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6102 (defining firearm

Abdalla, A. v. Algarf, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2020

This Court may, after a review of the case, find an abuse of discretion if equity clearly favored opening the judgment. Id. (citation omitted). … The law does not establish a specific time period within which a petition to open a judgment must be filed to qualify as [timely.]

Com. v. Lacosta-Franco, X.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2022

A statute will only be found unconstitutional if it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution. Commonwealth v. Williams, 733 A.2d 593, 603 (Pa. 1999). … In addition, as discussed above, not all defendants convicted of sexually violent offense qualify as SVP’s.

Kunz, E. v. Toll Brothers, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2018

To that end, each prong of the collateral order doctrine must be clearly present before an order may be considered collateral. Price v. … Clearly, appellants fail to satisfy the second prong of the collateral order doctrine.

Com. v. Selenski, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2023

Pa.R.E. 803.1(1) (in effect March 18, 2013 to April 1, 2017)5; see also id., Comment (“An inconsistent statement of a witness that does not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule may still be introduced to impeach … The PCRA court found that Appellant did not meet his burden in establishing his entitlement to relief on this claim. PCRA Court Opinion, 8/26/21, at 12.

Michael's LA Veranda v. Riverstone Riverfront

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2022

The first sentence did not qualify - 15 - J-A21029-21 the phrase “latent defects.” See id. … Further, the third sentence clearly describes physical and legal defects.

Piotti, J. v. Piotti, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2015

To be qualified, the order must contain certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits. … (9) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage.

Com. v. Schoen, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2019

Notably, the Commonwealth concedes that the cases relied upon by Appellant - discussed infra - “support her argument that a fenced backyard does not qualify as a ‘public place’ under the circumstances of this case.” … While Appellant yelled and screamed after the police removed her from her property and took her to the police station, she was clearly not in those public places voluntarily.

Com. v. Dolphin, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 2020

Further, testimony from Malik Cogburn established that [Appellant’s] actions were unprovoked. … Clearly, the court took that information into account in assessing Appellant’s potential for rehabilitation.

Com. v. Washington, Y.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2020

counsel would say in response to the allegations[,] are insufficient to establish entitlement to relief. … As a result, Appellant believed these statements should qualify as admissible after-discovered evidence, which should result in at least an evidentiary hearing. However, Appellant is misguided.

In Re: T.B. and E.A., Minors

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2015

[T.M.B.] clearly did not acknowledge his questions about returning to visit him at his home or what she would like to have in the future. … “These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 978 (Pa.