Case law

Com. v. Kennedy, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2016

Defendant has the qualified right to bail under Pa.R.Crim.P. 521{8). BY THE COURT: JCT/jah Cc: Megan E. … The defendant's guilt may be established by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or both. Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. 2009).

Speck v. Finegold

268 Pa. Super. 342 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1979

The more troublesome question of damages, once liability on the part of a physician is established, was neither raised nor directly considered. … Kneale, supra , establishes that an infant has standing to sue in Pennsylvania for injuries occurring prenatally. Nothing in Roe v.

CFS-4 II, LLC. v. Greco, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2016

A09010/16 [CFS] requests the appointment of [NAI], a qualified commercial real estate broker and property management entity to act as Receiver. … This Court finds that the terms of the mortgage clearly provide for the appointment of a receiver in the event of a default. Trial court opinion, 11/25/15 at 12-13.

Com. v. Carter, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2021

Because Appellant failed to establish prejudice, the PCRA court properly dismissed this claim. … Unquestionably, Officer Saunders did not qualify as a victim in this case. Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in allowing Officer Saunders to offer victim impact testimony at Appellant’s sentencing hearing.

Com. v. Garland, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2017

The totality of evidence summarized above clearly supports the verdict of guilt. … We accord “great deference” to this determination and will not overturn it unless it is “clearly erroneous.” Commonwealth v.

Kovalev, S. v. Rubinstein, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2024

- 16 - J-A08035-24 Kovalev’s certificate of merit states that he does not need expert testimony to establish his claim. … However, in this case, the claims do not qualify for the narrow exception where expert testimony is not needed, as a lay juror could not recognize the negligence just as well as an expert.

Com. v. Wagner, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2018

The jury was death-qualified because Bryant faced the possibility of the death penalty. … Indeed, the jury was clearly instructed by the trial court to evaluate the evidence offered by the Commonwealth as to each [defendant] individually [. . .]

In the Int. of: K.S., Appeal of: L.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2024

The court established the permanent placement goal of reunification and a concurrent goal of adoption for Child. … “These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” In re A.K., [906 A.2d 596,] 599 [(Pa. Super. 2006)].

Com. v. Wagstaff, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2014

In addition, there is no clearly defined limit as to the time sequence required for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance; instead, a fact- specific inquiry is made for each case to determine whether the utterance … These statements were clearly made in direct reaction to the scene witnessed and thus constituted an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.

Com. v. Johnson, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2022

If the purpose of the traffic stop had not concluded or not been abandoned when the gun was spotted in plain view, then clearly evidence of the gun should not be suppressed. … Barr also recognized that the possession of marijuana still is illegal for those not qualified under the MMA.

Com. v. Speece, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2015

Thus, “although we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside impartially.” Harris, 979 A.2d at 392. … will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest - 13 - J-A20026-15 unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly

Lloyd, S. v. Bell, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2015

Glaser’s testimony fails to meet the requisite certainty to establish a concession of injury. … In reviewing these, we recognize: [O]ur standard of review when faced with an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court clearly and palpably committed

Clouser, S. v. M. Clouser

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2022

The court also “encourage[d] the parties to perhaps give [F]ather some more time in the summer with his son . . . who clearly expressed a preference to spend most of the summer with his father.” Id. at 128. … While “the [C]hildren will have some enhancement to their qualify of life, . . . they will not be able to spend quite as much time with [F]ather and will have these trips back and forth.” Id.

Com. v. Miles, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2024

It must have been – he just grazed, . . . in that instance he did clearly with his fingers touch my nipples on both breasts more than one time. … That is for the purpose of tending to show motive, intent, common plan, scheme or design, absence of mistake, or accident, or to establish identity.

In the Interest of: F.N.H. a/k/a F.G., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2017

In or about August 2006, Mother failed to take F.N.H. to a medical appointment to update her immunizations. … s immunizations were updated. F.N.H. was next scheduled for a medical appointment on January 30, 2007.

Com. v. Pedro, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2023

Gamby, 283 A.3d 298 (Pa. 2022) (determining that the neck qualified as “sexual or other intimate parts” for indecent assault and the evidence was therefore sufficient to convict). … But the Commonwealth clearly admitted the document for its demonstrative value, showing the jury what Appellant’s form would have generically looked like.

Com. v. Maines, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2020

DISCUSSION Our Supreme Court recently has explained a petitioner's burden under the PCRAas follows Preliminarily, in order to qualify for relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must establish … Maines' actions at his sentencing clearly demonstrate that he did not perceive a conflict of interest at the time and that he was satisfied with Bernard'srepresentation, Further, accepting arguendo that an actual

Com. v. Spady, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2015

Accordingly, the Commonwealth established penetration, however slight. The Commonwealth also established that the Defendant and the victim had engaged in oral sex. … Moreover, the comment to the rule clearly establishes that "[t]he purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial judge or it will be waived."

Com. v. Myrick, I.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2022

has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s omission. … A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration— even a stern and short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—remain immune. Commonwealth v.

Term. of Par. Rts. of D.M.T.S. Appeal of D.M.T.-S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2020

Even with this level of established housing maintenance, the court considered the housing as only one factor among many in granting the motion for goal change. … Moreover, the orphans’ court held: - 12 - J-A24009-20 The evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrated that the repeated and continued incapacity of [M]other and [F]ather