Case law

Kandjabanga, F. v. Drexel Univ.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2018

Clearly, an accusation that a different trial judge committed judicial misconduct by ruling in Kandjabanga’s favor supports no cause of action at all. … Without some explanation, the Plaintiff failed to establish that a meritorious cause of action exists. 3.

Com. v. Williams, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2018

Our Supreme Court has instructed: [T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … The gun Appellant used was clearly an instrument of a crime.

In Re: S.H.A., Appeal of: K.L.A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2026

On appeal, Father argues that the mere presence of substance abuse issues does not establish grounds for termination. … The only time Father submitted a urine screen was at the beginning of this case before the relevant six-month period, and it was insufficient, so it did not qualify as a drug screen. See id. at 22.

Com. v. Rivera, N., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2017

The Superior Court has established that Alleyne, and its current Pennsylvania progeny, do not establish an exception to the PCRA time-bar under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(l)(iii). See Commonwealth v. … Furthermore, even assuming that Valentine would qualify as a new constitutional rule, Defendant is still not entitled to relief.

In the Int. of: M.G., Appeal of: J.G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2021

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). … family need not be made or continue to be made, whether the county agency has filed or sought to join a petition to terminate parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified

In the Interest of: G.F., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2024

During their testimony, G.F., E.F., and L.F. each described the scope of what qualified as “misbehavior” in Parents’ home as being quite broad and loosely defined. … While G.F. was unquestionably singled out for the worst of Parents’ misbehavior to the exclusion of the others, our case law clearly provides that Parents’ unreasonable actions with respect to a single child may have definitive

Com. v. Netherton, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2022

“The party who asserts that a trial judge must be disqualified bears the burden of producing evidence establishing bias, prejudice, or unfairness necessitating recusal.” Commonwealth v. … Such an exception is clearly irrelevant here, where there is no indication of improper judicial conduct during the guilty plea colloquy or the sentencing hearing.

Com. v. Gibson, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2023

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … The communications were clearly intended to be physically and emotionally threatening, defamatory, and distress-inducing.

Com. v. Sexton, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2016

However, as this is Appellant’s second petition for collateral relief, Appellant does not qualify for this exception, which only applies to a first PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. … Moreover, the sentencing court clearly addressed the third-degree murder conviction that is a source of Petitioner's misapprehension.6 Id. at 15.

A.D.W. v. L.A.K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2016

He maintains that this factor “clearly and importantly favor[ed him].” Id. at 45. … k, She described Father as being "clearly obsessed" with Mother. 1.

O'Connor, J. v. Snyder, E. and L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2024

her case and the Snyders’ efforts to establish their defense … The evidence introduced by O’Connor at trial did not clearly establish that the Snyders breached a bailee’s general duty of care. See, e.g., N.T., 5/5/2023, at 9, 14, 51-52; see also Price v.

Com. v. Johnson, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2017

Under the P.C.R.A., counsel is presumed to be effective and Appellant bears the burden of establishing ineffectiveness. Commonwealth v. … Scientific reports prepared for trial qualify as testimonial statements subject to the Confrontation Clause, and the defendant must be allowed to confront the analyst responsible for the scientific conclusions admitted

In Re: J.K.S., Appeal of: A.S., natural mother

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2017

[Child] clearly did not identify [Mother] as a source of love and comfort, though. Orphan’s Court Opinion, 1/31/17, at 6. … Accordingly, the evidence clearly supports termination of Mother’s parental rights under subsection (a)(1). Orphan’s Court Opinion, 1/31/17, at 7-8.

In Re: Adoption of M.M., Appeal of: R.M., father

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2017

The [orphans’ court] finds that a bonding assessment was completed in December 2015 by Carol Patterson, an expert child psychologist qualified to perform bonding assessments. … Here, the record establishes that Ms.

Coticchia, G. v. Malcovery Security, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2021

Coticchia essentially argues that Malcovery’s motion for summary judgment did not qualify as a request for arbitration — even though it clearly requested arbitration, and even though both he and the trial court understood … Coticchia based his conversion claim on these three admissions, they do no establish that Mr.

Com. v. Williams, S.

2025 Pa. Super. 159 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2025

s injuries and trauma were so severe that she suffered minor brain damage and, consequently, was not able to clearly recall what her assailant had looked like. 5. … With regard to the fourth factor, the trial court reasonably concluded that Appellant did not establish prejudice in this case.

Com. v. Livingston, Z.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2024

According to Livingston, the Commonwealth cannot establish that restricting eighteen- to twenty-year-old individuals from carrying a firearm publicly falls within the historical tradition of firearm regulation because, … Clearly the purpose of the Legislature in enacting this prohibition is twofold.

Com. v. Young, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2023

“To qualify for an exception to the PCRA’s time limitations under subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner need only establish that the facts upon which the claim is based were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained … Beyler’s “eminent qualifications,” and the PCRA court qualified Dr. Beyler as an expert in the fields of fire investigation and fire science.

Com. v. Price, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 2019

Whether [Appellant] qualifies for the exception to the PCRA…? … Therefore, his present petition, filed in July of 2018, is clearly untimely, and Appellant must meet one of the exceptions to the timeliness requirement set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii), supra.

Com. v. Hlushmanuk, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2015

This episode involved a nearly identical situation where the defendant allegedly choked the victim and slammed her to the ground during a domestic dispute thereby, qualifying as a "prior bad act" under Pa.R.E. 404(b). … Clearly, the sentence imposed upon this defendant took into consideration all of the above factors.