Case law

Com. v. Tabarez, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2018

Officer Mauer’s testimony clearly established that the evidence in question was what it was purported to be, a diagram of the area where the crimes in question occurred. … Moreover, appellant’s testimony that he was aware he was under investigation by law enforcement is clearly relevant to - 17 - J.

Com. v. Clary, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2021

A statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution; all doubts are to be resolved in favor of finding constitutionality. __________ … Clary does not dispute that he had a qualifying prior conviction at the time of sentencing, nor does he contend that section 9714 was applied incorrectly.

In the Int. of: A.M., Appeal of: T.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2022

Joseph Scheller, a pediatric neurologist who was qualified by the trial as expert. See Hearing Transcript, 12/1/2021, at 14. Unlike Dr. Bennett, it was Dr. … See Trial Court Opinion, 4/22/2022, at p. 21 (“[T]he evidence clearly established that Mother and Father were the primary caregivers for A.M. at the time of her injuries and that A.M.’s injuries occurred while A.M. was

In the Interest of: G.C., Appeal of: C.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2015

Kashurba was qualified as an expert in child behavior. Mr. Kashurba did an initial bonding assessment on September 17, 2012[,] and an addendum on March 19, 2013. [Mr. … The record supports that Mother clearly has a bond with [Child].

Braslow, M. v. Guthrie/Robert Packer Hosp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2026

“Rule 313 must be interpreted narrowly, and each of the above prongs must be clearly present for an order to be considered collateral.” Red Vision Sys., Inc. v. Nat’l Real Est. Info. … Again noting that Professor Braslow was in inactive status in three states, the trial court found that he did not qualify as a member of the bar of Hawaii. Id.

Com. v. Scott, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2023

The seven The seven photos photos clearly had probative clearly had value, as probative value, as they assisted Dr. … components to establish conspiracy.

Com. v. Blackwell, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2019

The Commonwealth has the benefit of a qualified privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential informant. Commonwealth v. Bing. 713 A.2d 56 (Pa. 1998); Commonwealth v. … Id. at 795. 10  The Affidavit of Probable Cause clearly contains the requisite probable cause that \ evidence of criminal activity would be found in the Sawmill

Com. v. MacNeal, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2018

Instead[,] he presented an expert witness who was qualified as an expert in pediatric medicine. Dr. … - 11 - J-S61007-18 Clearly, In re N.C. is distinguishable from this case.

Com. v. McMillan, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2015

The Commonwealth also presented expert testimony from Detective Shaffer, who was qualified as an expert in possession with intent to deliver. … The Court clearly stated its reasons during the sentencing hearing, and in fact, the Court has no discretion during sentencing in the instant case.

A.L.-S. v. B.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2017

Both patties employ qualified tutors and nannies, and have arranged for therapeutic staff support in their homes. … Also, the schedule established by the March 10, 2016 Order will provide C- with the opportunity to grow without the influence ofW ...

In the Interest of: D.C., A Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2018

We concluded that the case qualified for an exception to the mootness doctrine—that “a party to the controversy will suffer some detriment due to the decision of the trial court.” Id. at 616. … They argue DHS did not present evidence to establish that removal was clearly necessary and that the trial court applied the best-interest of the child standard, rather than the clear necessity standard that should be

W.G. v. P.A

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2022

Quite clearly, Mother did not offer these statements to prove that Father abused the Child. … Clearly, the trial court resolved the conflict in favor of Mother and the Child.

Townsend, J. v. Spear, Greenfield & Richman, P.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2020

He argues that Muhammad “does not immunize attorneys from legal error upon which a settlement was causally predicated. … Townsend agrees that fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and contends that “the allegations set forth in [his] Complaint and Affidavit clearly set[] forth very specific evidence concerning fraudulent

Com. v. Taylor, I.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2020

Assuming Appellant’s objection should have been sustained on the basis that the detective’s comment on consistency qualified as improper bolstering, such an error would be harmless. … The text messages themselves were only relevant to establish that Appellant and Victim were together on October 20, 2016.

Kirksey, R. v. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2019

Evidence about the risks of treatment may be relevant in establishing the standard of care. See id., at 1161. … We cannot find the court abused its discretion in permitting Appellees to introduce evidence of the risk of rash as part of establishing the standard of care.

Welsh, P. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2016

The requirements of an affidavit are clearly stated in the Rules of Civil Procedure and those requirements do not contain an exemption for any class of persons or jobs that have their own oaths. … Our Court has consistently adhered to the Rogers standard, stating that in only the most frivolous cases may the courts deny a FELA plaintiff his or her qualified right to a jury trial.

Com. v. Spanier, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2018

While the trial judge’s agreement with federal authorities did not provide for immunity from prosecution, it did promise that the federal authorities would make known to any other court or investigating or prosecuting … As to whether Appellant proved bias sufficient to establish an appearance of impropriety, he has not.

In Re: Adopt of: S.W.C., Appeal of: C.C., Father

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2014

The trial court concluded that CYS established the statutory grounds to terminate parental rights outlined in § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8) and (b). … As we have indicated, “[t]hese statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” In re S.B., supra at 978 (citation omitted).

Com. v. Rohrbach, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2019

He fails to address how “certain facts [were] so clearly of greater weight than to ignore them or to give them equal weight” denies justice. … Land's testimony established that Ms.

Camper, C. v. Werner, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2019

Additionally, “this Court [has] clearly held [] that the tax ramifications and expenses associated with the sale of a marital asset is a relevant consideration whether a sale is likely or not.” … In addressing this claim, the trial court stated that it believed that the monies included in the trust were a gift to Wife from her mother, and therefore did not qualify as marital assets.