Case law

Com. v. Wakeley, G., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2026

The Court acknowledged that the crimes “were clearly ‘similar,’” but highlighted the differences between them: In two of the cases, [the defendant] initiated contact with the victims; the third victim approached … Nevertheless, after careful review we determine his actions “were not so unique or distinctive as to qualify as signature crimes.” Id. at 74.

Scott, D. v. Giacomelli, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2016

Clearly, Scott’s customer base was a legitimate business interest. … The trial court determined that it was clear that Giacomelli could have obtained alternative employment without unreasonable difficulty because she was a well-qualified, well-established, and well-trained dance instructor

In Re: Truss, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2018

While these Rules are established pursuant to Pa. Const. Art. … (2) Upon removal under paragraph (1)(ii), the court may appoint a suitable individual to fill the vacancy until a successor is elected and qualified.

Rega, R. v. Community Health Plan

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 2022

Appellant asserts the POA qualifies as a “contract.” Id. … Upon review, Appellant failed to establish the third element — the absence of justification.

Com. v. Miller, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2020

identification, is positive as to identity, and identification not weakened by prior failure to identify, testimony regarding identification need not be received with caution; conversely, where witness was not in position to clearly … Super. 2013) (citations omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).6 Furthermore, the petitioner must establish that his claim is based upon issues that have not been either waived or previously litigated.

In Re: Estate of: Benner, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2018

The statute provides that, to establish incapacity, the petitioner must present testimony, in person or by deposition from individuals qualified by training and experience in evaluating individuals with … Thus, a plenary guardianship was the least restrictive alternative to establish care.

Manning, R. v. Kelly, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2015

sell KellyCars to Lash/GPB); see also Reply Brief for Appellants at 22 (asserting that Manning’s “failure to [previously] invoke the Section 2.3 rights he now asserts …[,] despite the numerous opportunities to do so[,] clearly … their shares, or KellyCars desires to sell all or substantially all of the assets of the Business, Kelly or KellyCars, as applicable, may obtain an appraisal of KellyCars by a qualified

Estate of Andrew F. Rodgers, Appeal of: Wehar, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2019

-4- J-A03012-19 The court may appoint as guardian any qualified individual, a corporate fiduciary, a nonprofit corporation, a guardianship support agency . … Upon en banc review of wife’s exceptions, the court found no abuse of discretion,3 concluding that “[t]he record clearly shows that the excepting spouse does have interests which are adverse to her husband.”

Walsh, L. v. Brown, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2024

Later, Mother qualified this testimony by stating that her boyfriend is a doctor who “can’t leave the hospital at times. He’s not a dependable driver.” (Id. at 37). … Just because the language of Paragraph 4(b) could have been drafted more clearly does not mean that the language is not sufficiently clear to support the charge of contempt.

Shaffer, K. v. Visaggio's, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2015

Instead, we note that the conclusions of [Appraiser Duncan] bear a reasonable relationship to the values established by the parties’ experts and is clearly supported by substantial evidence. … We therefore agree with the trial court’s determination that “the conclusions of [Appraiser Duncan] bear a reasonable relationship to the value established by the parties’ experts and is clearly supported by substantial

Com. v. Mora, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2016

The thwarted search involved in Snyder was clearly a government function, conducted by government agents. … Appellant argues that the details of the kidnapping were not necessary to establish the charges in the other two cases, but this is clearly not entirely true.

Com. v. King, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2018

King does not dispute that he was previously convicted of a qualifying offense under this statute. … “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 abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Alexander, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2015

Appellant’s convictions in 2005 conclusively established his violations of probation. … A judge's ordinary efforts at courtroom administration - even a stern and short-tempered judge's ordinary efforts at courtroom administration - remain immune. Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Stevenson, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 2019

. ____________________________________________ 4 Appellant’s Attempted Burglary conviction qualified as a “second strike,” requiring the court to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 to 20 years’ incarceration. … The “[a]dmission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v.

Estate of Eric S. Waite, Appeal of: Lisa D. Waite

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2020

LaPorte, Ph.D., who was qualified as an expert in psychology. … We will reverse any decree based on palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable rules of law.

Com. v. Depoe, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2017

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 … These circumstances demonstrate that the [c]ourt did not sentence [Appellant] to a manifestly excessive or clearly unreasonable sentence. As such, the claims of error are without merit.

In The Interest of: C.B., a minor Appeal of: S.K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2016

It is well-established that “goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.” In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 345 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted). … We have stated that, “[t]hese 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. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

In the Interest of: A.W. Appeal of: R.W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2017

“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). … Therefore, based on the totality of the evidence, we conclude that CYF failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that a change in goal would be in Child’s best interest.

Com. v. Amy, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2017

prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act . . . if [Appellant] knows, has reason to know or intends that such act may be photographed, videotaped, depicted on computer or filmed.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(b).4 Thus, to qualify … However, Appellant fails to acknowledge that the jury was clearly entitled to weigh this testimony in the context of the other evidence adduced at trial.

In the Int. of: S.S., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 2022

The ____________________________________________ 6 Ultimately, Hine was qualified as an expert at the denial hearing, and her report was entered into evidence. N.T. Denial Hearing, 8/14/20, at 14, 18. … With regard to his claim that K.H. was not sworn in at trial, S.S.’s brief is entirely deficient in establishing this claim.