Case law

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

In the Int. of: K.C., Appeal of: F.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2019

Mother argues that a child may not be separated from his parents unless the separation is clearly necessary. … this Commonwealth, including any relative, who, after study by the probation officer or other person or agency designated by the court, is found by the court to be qualified

Com. v. Noel, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2020

In considering this issue, we follow a clearly defined standard of review: When the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order, we follow a clearly defined standard of review and consider only … Clearly, these mutually exclusive positions cannot be permitted to co-exist with respect to the same evidence.

Com. v. Watson, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2017

As we stated above, the burden for establishing prejudice falls squarely on Watson. Watson does not even attempt to establish prejudice in his appellate brief. … Watson clearly had access to his younger cousins and his sister and had power over them because of his elder status.

Walker, D. v. Maffeo, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2018

advancement by [the Walkers] as a loan, the [c]ourt’s conclusion of law, based on the totality of the testimony and evidence, is that the payment was not a loan but was instead a purchase money payment qualifying … However, Pa.R.E. 701 addresses opinion testimony by lay witnesses that is “rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and not

Com. v. Rivera, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2024

from the circumstantial evidence that Appellant intentionally showed Victim an expired business privilege license, instead of the contractor’s license she requested, to prevent Victim from learning that Appellant was not qualified … Rather, the role of the judge is to determine that, not withstanding all of the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight, that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all of the facts is to deny justice

Bitner, S. v. Sheehan, J., M.D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2019

Arnold had no part in preparing these Answers, and we find that the Answers themselves clearly belie that claim.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/16/18, at 3. … Bitner’s deposition testimony indicates that he was trained or qualified to be a construction supervisor or manager. - 23 -

Com. v. Brewer, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2023

The Commonwealth argues that the evidence should be admissible because it qualified as one of the exceptions to Rule 404(b). … Essentially, Appellee’s argument goes to the weight accorded to the evidence — not to its admissibility — a decision which is clearly left to the fact-finder. See id.

In Re: Est. of Helen Harper, Appeal of: Harper, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2022

petition for adjudication/statement of proposed distribution, and any legal paper filed therewith shall be sent with the notice, unless the recipient of the notice is a trust beneficiary who is not a “qualified … While Appellant was provided with an extension from ten days to 30 days to file objections, the record clearly establishes that a continuance of the audit was neither granted, nor even mentioned, at the July 2021 Audit

Com. v. Smith, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2020

Initially, we address whether Appellant established prejudice. … The Commonwealth qualified the therapist as an expert witness, then asked her to provide her “opinion as to [the complainant’s] ability to in character tell the truth.” Id.

Com. v. Anderson, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2017

made immune from scrutiny. … In sum, the record does not tend to establish that either victim identified Appellee with a high degree of certainty. Several weeks had passed since they had the opportunity to observe their assailant.

Com. v. Gonzalez, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 2024

The Commonwealth’s certification alone is sufficient to establish our jurisdiction over the interlocutory orders. See Commonwealth v. … Second, a postponement of trial would prevent [Appellee] Berrios from being represented by Attorney Deiderick, who was clearly his attorney of choice.

Com. v. Wydo-Streit, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2019

Thus, appellant averred that her sentence did not qualify as “a state sentence[.]” (Id. at ¶ 3.) … 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,

Com. v. Fries, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2017

June Messam was qualified at trial as an expert in the field of child sexual abuse evaluations and pediatrics. … The evidence established [appellant’s] intent, common plan, scheme or design to engage in unlawful, and similar, sexual conduct with the alleged victim.

In Re: Adoption of: A.J.L.G., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 2018

Her IQ score of 58 qualifies her for a diagnosis of Intellectual Disability, Mild. … In consideration of this testimony, the [trial court found] that the Agency clearly and convincingly established that termination of parental rights is justified pursuant to [s]ection 2511(a)(2)[] of the Adoption

Com. v. Lape, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2017

We did not believe an expert witness was necessary to establish this point. … Luttner could have qualified as an expert. Hr'g Tr. 37. The Assistant District Attorney represented that this Court had ruled in the first trial that Ms. Luttner was not permitted to be qualified as an expert.

Com. v. Boccuto, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2016

Moreover, our Supreme Court has instructed: [T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Here, the evidence established that Defendant pushed Ms. Rios to the ground, then jumped on her leg with his full weight, causing serious injury to her leg.

Com. v. Payne, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2023

Appellant first claims the PCRA court erred in dismissing his PCRA petition “without a hearing when [he] clearly demonstrated a newly- discovered fact that was unknown to” him. Appellant’s Brief at 9. … Although he may have received additional details in Crosson’s December 2017 letter, the fact that police utilized third-party information to aid their investigation does not qualify as a “newly-discovered fact.”

Com. v. Dixon, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 2015

instant appeal in that the petition contains facts unknown to [Dixon] in this matter and said facts could not have been obtained by any exercise of due diligence due to the fact that the Affiant clearly … The Court erred in finding that Defendant's PCRA Petition was not timely filed because the evidence qualifies as newly discovered evidence and Defendant has exercised due diligence. 4.

In Re: Adoption of: P.G.D.W., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2024

The court adjudicated Child dependent on February 11, 2021, and established a placement goal of return to parent or guardian. Order of Adjudication and Disposition, 2/11/21, at 2-3. … The court agrees that third-party material in the file may not qualify for the business records exception. However, in answering questions, Ms.