Case law

Com. v. Harper, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2018

Our Supreme Court has explained the difference between the two legal concepts as follows: 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 by the exercise of due diligence.

Poist, S. v. Poist, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2019

(9) The standard of living established during the marria�. We believe that the parties had a modest, yet comfortable, standard of living during their marriage. … Furthermore, the information sought was clearly irrelevant to the issue before the Court.

Com. v. Powell, K

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2020

Thus, the right expressed in Griffin is a qualified right that can be effectively waived when exploited by the defense. Subsequently, in Commonwealth v. … - 20 - J-S74011-19 The hearsay statement was also cumulative of the far more detailed and clearly admissible testimony by Mr.

Gross, E. v. Genesis Healthcare, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2018

The Facility acknowledges that Decedent was not qualified to execute the Admission Agreement due to his dementia. Id. at 34. … The gist of the Facility’s argument is that because Decedent could not sign the Admission Agreement, “clearly someone – his wife – had the authority to execute this contract on his behalf.” Id.

Com. v. Marrero-Rodriguez, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2020

He was precluded from having a weapon because of a qualifying prior conviction and was not licensed to carry a weapon in a vehicle or concealed on his person. Trial Court Opinion, 9/9/19, at 2. … The evidence of record establishes that Appellant was alone in a blue Honda Civic during the altercation. N.T., 1/22/19, at 112, 127, 134-135.

Com. v. Petroziello, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2024

Consistent with the argument that Appellant presented in qualifying his assent to the report’s inclusion in the record, Appellant contends that, due to his psychiatric problems when the shooting occurred, he could not … O’Brien determined that Appellant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, he clearly did not opine that Appellant was legally insane

In Re: Adopt of: S.W.C. Appeal of: R.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2014

reunify the 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 … As we have indicated, “[t]hese statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” In re S.B., supra at 978 (citation omitted).

C.W. v. T.J.T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2017

-9- J-A16044-17 Mother complains that Father has failed to abide by such requirements in the past, yet fails to acknowledge that the trial court’s opinion clearly informs Father … Given these facts, we hold that Mother’s move qualifies as relocation, and the trial court properly considered the statutory relocation factors. C.M.K. v. K.E.M., 45 A.3d 417, 426 (Pa.

In the Int. of: S.J., Appeal of: L.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2025

Though we are not bound by the [juvenile] court’s inferences and deductions, we may reject its conclusions only if they involve errors of law or are clearly unreasonable in light of the [juvenile] court’ … because he’s so settled into the family’s home at this time. *** [Since being placed with Delta, Child has become] up to date with all of his medical appointments and immunizations

Com. v. Statler, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2022

Nevertheless, the court then determined that the prosecutor’s misconduct had not violated the rule established in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In Brady, the U.S. … Although the prosecutor’s admission clearly demonstrates intentional misconduct, it does not implicitly suggest conduct intended to deprive Appellant of a fair trial.

V.P v. v. S.V.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2017

A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—even a stern and short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—remain immune. Id. at 61 (quoting Liteky v. … The trial court’s finding that Father was not credible does not establish the trial court was biased. See Kearney, 92 A.3d at 61. C.

Avery, A. v. Cercone, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2021

found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly … Regarding scientific evidence and expert opinions, our Rules of Evidence provide: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an

Makowka, K. v. Fox & Roach LP

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2021

Makowka further posits that, to establish damages for fraud, she did not have to establish the property’s value as of the date of the transaction. Id. at 22. … According to Makowka, “[t]his is clearly a pecuniary loss suffered otherwise[,] as a consequence of the recipient’s reliance upon the misrepresentation,” as specified in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 549.

Wattamwar, P. v. Fox & Roach LP

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2021

The Wattamwars dispute the trial court’s assessment that they were not qualified to give this valuation testimony, based upon their lack of personal knowledge of that value at the time of the transaction. Id. at 21. … The Wattamwars further posit that, to establish damages for fraud, they were not required to establish the property’s value as of the date of the transaction. Id. at 22.

Com. v. Mander, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2020

The DNA analyst, Janicia Huttley, who would be qualified as an expert, … testif[ied] at trial [regarding] the knife recovered from the upstairs bedroom. … of the plea is established.

In the Int. of: G.M.S., a Minor, Appeal of K.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2020

The court established reunification as the Children’s permanency goal. N.T., 12/4/19, at 19. … “These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 978 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

L.R.F. v. D.W.F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2017

Mitchell Schmidt ... was established as an expert in the area of vocational evaluation and estimates of earning capacity. … Clearly, because [Father] has done this work for over twenty years, inspections of commercial buildings are done for reasons other than to obtain a certificate that the building passes state codes

Com. v. Horton, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2017

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … further note that, it is an unquestionable maxim of law in this Commonwealth that a trial court has broad discretion in phrasing its instructions, and may choose its own wording so long as the law is clearly

Reever, B. v. Lancaster County Motors

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2019

sic] on a mere technicality since post-trial motions serve an important function in adjudicatory process in that they afford the trial court in the first instance the opportunity to correct asserted trial error and also clearly … 20  CI-14-10068 the trial court, for the trial court is uniquely qualified

In the Interest of: A.M.M. Appeal of: S.J.M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2017

Thus, the first requirement of Section 2511(a)(8) was clearly satisfied. Moreover, the conditions that led to A.M.M.’s removal and placement continue to exist. … The fact that A.M.M. has affection for Father is insufficient to establish that a beneficial bond exists. See In re K.K.R.-S., K.M.R., K.A.R., 958 A.2d 529, 534 (Pa.