Case law

In the Int. of: I.P., Appeal of: L.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2025

The court established a permanency goal of reunification. Mother was required to complete an immediate drug screen and three random drug screens prior to the next court date. … These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child. . . . We review for an abuse of discretion.

Com. v. Celento, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2021

Prejudice is established when [an appellant] demonstrates that counsel’s chosen course of action had an adverse effect on the outcome of the proceedings. … Clearly there is nothing shocking about the verdict.” (Opinion in Support of Denial of Post-Sentence Motions at 8-9).

Com. v. Jackson, R., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2017

The trial court concluded: “Obsessive diary entries addressed to the victim written hours before she was attached by [Appellant] are clearly relevant to establishing his state of mind and motive on the night of the crime … Obsessive diary entries addressed to the victim written hours before she was attacked by the Defendant are clearly relevant to establishing his state of mind and motive on the night of the crime.

Roy, C. v. Cianciotta, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2026

Romer was not proffered, qualified, or accepted as an expert in the field of threat of harm evaluations during trial.” Trial Court Opinion, 6/12/25, at 8. … Romer was not proffered or qualified as an expert witness, and did not testify as an expert in these proceedings.

Com. v. Strawn, S., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2020

Clearly, the DEFENDANT's turn from Route 322 onto Route 117 did not comport with this standard. … Clearly, the DEFENDANT's turn from Route 322 onto Route 117 did not comport with this standard.

Com. v. Christine, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 2018

Rivera, supra (counsel is presumed effective and burden to establish otherwise is on appellant). … Rice agreed to a 4 to 8 year sentence in return for immunity for his girlfriend for any involvement she may have had with his criminal matter. Judge Beltrami provided Mr.

Com. v. Scott, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2018

Clearly, presenting medical testimony would have more clearly explained to the ury the symptoms of aphasia. … While expert medical testimony may have ore clearly established, the effects of Petitioner's stroke and aphasia there is not sufficient evidence, to stablish that Petitioner was prejudiced by any failure, to

N.D.J. v. D.E.J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 2020

Father has clearly violated Rule 2119(a), and this violation hampers an issue-by-issue review. … The trial court further found that Factor 5 (established pattern of conduct to promote or thwart relationship with other party) favored Father’s relocation because of Mother’s “established pattern of efforts to thwart

Com. v. Bailey, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2021

He admitted that he would ask S.S. to marry him, but he qualified the admission by saying that he would tell her “when you get older.” N.T. at 377. … A reversal of the trial court's order will be granted only where the trial court has clearly abused its discretion. Id.

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

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2019

These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child. … 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. Griffith, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2014

someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and - 10 - J-S47024-14 (B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly … Furthermore, such evidence, even if it qualified as an excited utterance - defense claim because, as discussed at length infra, two eyewitnesses

Com. v. Ellis, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2020

The Commonwealth clearly put on the record that this informatton was part of Denny's 'testimony and no objection was lodged .at any time prior to Denny·� testimony. … Clearly the record supports the Commonwealth's oontention that it was Elli�'s desire to have the cans· played in ·tf,ek entirety Without redaction.

Com. v. Washington, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2018

[fn] The video clearly showed two individuals with arms extended with what appeared to be weapons pointed. Clarence testified consistent with the video images that were shown to the jury. … In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.

McDermott, S. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2017

That was the policy they established, yes, sir. Q. You're familiar with that? A. In a high level. … The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible.

Com. v. Robertson, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2022

We recognize that our trial judges are honorable, fair and competent, and although we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified … Here, the jury clearly found the testimony of the three primary Commonwealth witnesses on this issue – Officer McGowan, Ms.

Com. v. Seagren, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2020

Regardless, the evidence adduced at trial, presented to the fact -finder, establish the elements for all forgery counts as charged. … An analysis of the weight of the Victim's testimony in coordination with all of the other evidence presented at trial, clearly established the elements of the various offenses as a matter of law.

Gourmet's Delight Mushrooms, LP v. Keating, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2022

Following our review, we conclude that the Gourmet I Court’s ruling on summary judgment did not establish the law of the case. … If the Kirkmans wished to prohibit more than a building, they could have added “mushroom growing” or “preparation of compost” to the deed restriction, but the only qualifying terms they chose to employ was

Com. v. Iyekekpolor, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2016

Clearly, she did not have the opportunity to reflect on what she saw and form a purpose for misstating her observation. The fact that she was available as a witness was immaterial. Commonwealth v. … Here, we concluded that the multiple calls, .the.coordination of the information with the testimony of known witnesses, as well as the majority of the 911 calls which qualified as present sense impressions, provided the

JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Gallagher, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2019

Devine’s affidavit clearly satisfied the requirements of Rule 1035.4 and § 6108(b). … Thus, Appellants’ amended answer and new matter clearly was not “in issue” when the trial court ruled on Bank’s motion for summary judgment.

Sehrawat, B. v. Rite Aid

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2020

“[I]n order to qualify as a bona fide purchaser, the subsequent buyer must be without notice of the prior equitable interests of others…. … Based on the facts of record, Rite Aid clearly failed to adduce sufficient evidence regarding the existence of a power of attorney. Thus, Rattan Trust was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Young v.