Case law

Com. v. Dunkerly-Adams, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2021

-5- J-A27028-20 governing the admissibility of hearsay, and qualifying out-of- court statements as admissible non-hearsay statements? 3. … The suppression court “credit[ed Detective Morris’s] testimony in establishing the factual basis for the Miranda waiver[s].” Id. at 1.

Com. v. Emarievebe, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2023

His testimony was credible, emotional, and clearly delivered. … Emarievebe established all prongs of the ineffective assistance test detailed in Spotz, supra.

Thierry, C. v. Yamulla, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2022

In her February 12, 2019 answer and new matter, Yamulla averred that the transfer of title was made as a qualified or conditional gift. … Unless the rules of law relied on are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, however, a grant of injunctive relief will not be reversed on appeal.” Id.

U.S. Bank v. Applegate, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2016

The amounts due were clearly established by the payment history of the loan, the Mortgage, and the Note, copies of which were attached to the Bank's Summary Judgment Motion. … The Bank established by sworn affidavit that the loan was in default, and that the default had not been cured. A precise amount due was set forth.

Old Republic Insurance Company v. Stevens, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2017

A “CLAIM” is a “written notification received by any INSURED requesting money damages that qualify as a LOSS,” including a civil litigation claim. Id. at 6 § III. … She therefore has not established an entitlement to relief.

A.G.Z. v. H.A.K.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2018

Mother suggests that the trial court’s phrasing (“clearly the circumstances have changed”) is proof that the trial court misapplied the law. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/12/2017, at 7. We disagree. … For one, Mother did not prevail in her arguments, and she did not prevail in a “proceeding to establish paternity or to obtain a support order.”

Com. v. Keyser, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2016

In conjunction with this claim, he states he qualified for a hearing, pursuant to United States v. … Clearly, if the police had shown each photograph separately, an issue would arise about the defendant's place in the array.

Florentino, E. v. Ramlochan, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2025

At the time of the masters hearing, the parties through their counsel stipulated to VV;fe's receipt of a portion of FLIlsband sVerizon pension plan through HusbandFS obligation to implement a Qualified Domestic Relations … Husband clearly testified that his inc,orne was derived frorn his continuing employment at Verizon. and Vjife did not dispute this evidence.

R.G. v. I.G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2015

Contrary to Grandmother’s contentions on appeal, the foregoing testimony does not establish that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to resubmit Aunt and Grandmother to family counseling under the facts … Shienvold’s lay opinion regarding the substance of the incomplete custody evaluation as an end-run around the requirements of a qualified expert, the context of Ms.

PECO Energy Co v. First Montgomery

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2016

i The entire release is qualified by the final clause, "arising out of .or in connection with the Debt." … The Settlement Agreement is · unambiguous and clearly ldentltles and narrowly defines the "Debt" released.

Com. v. Smith R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2018

[Further, that same day, the trial court determined that “the Commonwealth has met its burden in establishing that [Appellant] does meet the criteria to be classified as a sexually violent predator … “The admission of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court may reverse only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v.

First American Title Ins. Co. v. Comond, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2022

Accordingly, Appellant has not established that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider First American’s praecipes for a writ of revival. … As the judgment is clearly entitled to full faith and credit in this Commonwealth, we conclude that this claim is meritless.

Com. v. Shadle, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2015

The instant PCRA Petition, filed on September 20, 2012, is clearly untimely; therefore, unless an exception applies, Shadle is not eligible for relief Indeed, unless such an exception applies, this court lacks jurisdiction … In order to qualify for the exception set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9545(b)(l)(ii), to constitute facts which were unknown to a petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due

Com. v. Crawford, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2017

More specifically, Appellant claims that Officer Barr, who was not qualified as an expert and did not have personal knowledge of the incident, speculated that the surveillance video showed Appellant retrieve what the officer … In his appellate brief, Appeilant does not set forth the elements of his crimes for which he was convicted or establish what element(s) the Commonwealth failed to establish, which results in waiver in a sufficiency challenge

Com. v. Galbiati, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2021

Finally, Appellant claims the Commonwealth failed to establish it would be substantially prejudiced. Id. at 32. … Certainly, if a defendant were to plead guilty to avoid a death sentence when there is no possibility of a death sentence, then this mistake would clearly be material.

Com. v. Newell, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2018

witness to testify about the contents of videos to narrate about an incident, including identification, when the witness had no personal knowledge of the incident and not only did the testimony not qualify … Video surveillance footage clearly showed the Defendant carry a previously concealed revolver eastbound on Chew Avenue, a public street in Philadelphia. Commonwealth Exhibit C- 131.

Mirabella, J. v. St. Joseph's University, and M.W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2026

catchall provision proscribes fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. ***** Nevertheless, to establish … including but not limited to the defenses of accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, consent, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fair comment, fraud, illegality, immunity

Com. v. Galbiati, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2021

Finally, Appellant claims the Commonwealth failed to establish it would be substantially prejudiced. Id. at 32. … Certainly, if a defendant were to plead guilty to avoid a death sentence when there is no possibility of a death sentence, then this mistake would clearly be material.

Com. v. Jones, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2016

Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with … Generally, we have determined that three months does not qualify as recent possession or acquisition under the aforementioned standards.

Hayman, B. v. Hayman, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2020

The parties since have returned to court numerous times for a dispute over the entry of a Qualified ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 While … Clearly, the order was not the model of clarity, and it does not meet the requirement that it be “definite, clear, and specific.” Sutch, 142 A.3d at 67–68.