Case law

Commonwealth v. Kauffman

94 Pa. Super. 419 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1928

Kauffman, do hereby voluntarily, and without any promise made to me or any expectation of immunity under the Criminal Laws of the State of Pennsylvania, admit that I have embezzled and misappropriated the funds of The Exchange … The evidence was adequately and fairly discussed and the rules of law by which the jury were to be guided in reaching their conclusions upon the facts were clearly explained.

Commonwealth v. Schoff

2006 Pa. Super. 307 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2006

agree. ¶ 16 The following standard governs our review of the admissibility of evidence: 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 … of technician who performed test). ¶ 21 Instantly, the Commonwealth qualified Ms.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Platt v. Platt

266 Pa. Super. 276 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 1979

As stated above, the basic policy behind the principle of interspousal immunity is to enhance marital harmony. … Health Act) takes preference over the statute establishing the physician-patient privilege.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Howard v. Claudy

172 Pa. Super. 574 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1953

Extradition does not create immunity. Section 25 of the Act of April 21, 1927, P. … of indictments for the purpose of trial is largely a matter in the discretion of the trial judge, and, where the indictments are closely related, the trial court’s exercise of discretion will not be reversed unless it is clearly

Markovsky, J. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co.

2014 Pa. Super. 282 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2014

- 14 - J-A17039-14 [G]iven the actual number of Pennsylvania Defendants who may qualify and the lack of contrary evidence, and the clearly expressed basis … Section 3 extends protections of Section 8128 of the Judicial Code to companies that qualify under Section 1929.1.

Klug v. Gazey

270 Pa. Super. 445 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1979

. § 5513(b). 1 Appellants, owners of the machines, are seeking a reversal of that order and a remand to the lower court to determine whether the machines qualify for the protection of the Act of July 1, 1978, P.L. 572, No … This Act amended 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5513 by adding the following subsection: (c) Antique slot machines. — (1) A slot machine shall be established as an antique slot machine if the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence

Com. v. Nealy, D.

2025 Pa. Super. 55 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2025

Appellant emphasizes that no other direct evidence established that Appellant was an active participant in the murder. … United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (explaining that transactional immunity provides witness full immunity from prosecution for crimes arising from any transaction concerning which witness was

Brush v. Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees of the Pennsylvania State University

249 Pa. Super. 164 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1977

The evidence clearly established that students must leave their individual bedrooms and traverse the hallway to utilize these various facilities, the functions of which are, for the most part, traditionally private in nature … Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.

Lerten Appeal

168 Pa. Super. 516 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1951

The petitioners seeking annexation presented testimony establishing the averments of their petition. … The record clearly establishes that only 28 signed the petition to withdraw their names. They Are: Mary M. Schroeder; Rose Wagner; Priscilla Schmdit; Henry Schmidt; Helen Hilton; Roy Hilton; Wm. A.

Commonwealth v. Jennings

2008 Pa. Super. 230 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2008

See Pa.R.E. 702. 10 Our standard of review for the competency of expert witnesses is well established: the question whether a witness is qualified to testify as an ‘expert’ is within the sound discretion of the trial court … It is also well established that an expert may render an opinion based on training and experience; formal education on the subject matter is not necessarily required. Commonwealth v.

In the Interest of: J.N.W., a Minor

197 A.3d 274 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2018

However, the detective also informed her she would not be immune from other forms of prosecution. … statute, 35 P.S. § 780-113.7, which provides immunity from prosecution for possessory offenses under certain circumstances

Commonwealth v. Donnelly

233 Pa. Super. 396 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1975

First, by his actions, appellant clearly had intended to relinquish all rights and interests in the bonds. … Eagle harbored vindictive motives or was requesting from the government officials immunity from punishment. Rather, the record indicates that Mr.

Estate of Wyinegar

711 A.2d 492 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1998

The exact date of the marriage was not established, but the trial court took judicial notice of the incapacity hearing for Robert, captioned at No. 67-96-1140. … Therefore, clearly, the election is in Robert’s best interest.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Fortune v. Dragovich

2002 Pa. Super. 38 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2002

Did the trial court err as a matter of law on ruling that Appellant’s request *1259 to proceed in forma pauperis was frivolous where [the] underlying claim clearly alleged a violation of constitutional rights? … Although such discretionary exercises are not immune from judicial scrutiny, they are appropriately addressed in a claim of deprivation of constitutional rights *1260 under color of state law as prescribed by the federal

Mischenko v. Gowton

307 Pa. Super. 426 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1982

Gowton is clearly within its reach. It is well settled that “jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant is dependent upon proper service having been made.” Neff v. … A petition to open a judgment which is said to be null and void should be granted where the facts to support that contention can be established.

Kravinsky v. Glover

263 Pa. Super. 8 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1979

HOFFMAN, Judge: Appellant contends that the lower court erred in (1) qualifying a behavior therapist as an expert on causation, (2) finding that the therapist’s testimony was sufficient to establish causation, and (3) admitting … His initial statement that he felt that the collision was a significant cause of her phobic condition clearly expresses a professional judgment of reasonable certainty. Euker v.

Com. v. Gonzalez, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2026

- 13 - J-S42008-25 Without establishing a foundation for the request for immunity, the District Attorney did in fact ask the [trial c]ourt for an immunity order … Moreover, as set forth above, the record belies Appellant’s claim that there was no record evidence to establish the witnesses actually asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege and that the trial court only granted immunity

Commonwealth v. Aikins

422 Pa. Super. 15 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1993

It applies just as clearly to prosecution of the indirect criminal contempt of a PFA violation before the burglary charges could be prosecuted in this case. … To sustain Mirra’s claim would, in effect, grant a summary contemnor immunity from a homicide prosecution—an unconscionable result.

Commonwealth v. Stivala

435 Pa. Super. 176 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1994

(Emphasis added) Clearly, the language of the immunity statute requires the court to grant the immunity request based entirely upon the decision to seek it by the Attorney General or district attorney. … There is no discretion given to the trial court, and clearly, therefore, the grant of an order of immunity is a ministerial act.

Commonwealth v. Coyle

190 Pa. Super. 509 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1959

It provides: “In any proceeding to establish paternity, the court, on motion of the defendant, shall order the mother, her child and the defendant to submit to one or more blood grouping tests by a duly qualified physician … Their reliability as an indicator of the truth has been fully established.