Case law

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 Re: Adoption of T.J.S., Appeal of: T.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2015

were taken into custody when Mother violated the established safety plan. 8) While [T.J.S.] has been in custody, Mother has continued to receive intensive parenting instruction … Hughes being qualified as an expert in the area of bonding and attachment. Th[e orphans’ c]ourt accepts and relies upon Ms.

In The Interest of: T.W., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2016

Based on her age, T.W. qualified for this Court's three-month review protocol. … clearly warrants termination.

In the Interest of: T.W., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2016

Based on her age, T.W. qualified for this Court's three-month review protocol. … clearly warrants termination.

Com. v. Varner, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2025

Such injuries fit squarely within the definition of “serious bodily injury,” as required to qualify as aggravated assault for the crime exception. … Therefore, the court finds that the Commonwealth has established that Ms.

Com. v. Bethea, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2019

the evidence clearly established probable cause to believe that the premises contained evidence of a crime. 26  Fourth, as to whether there is a strong reason … · · · Accordingly, the record clearly established that exigent circumstances permitted the police to enter the premises for a limited protective sweep while awaiting the arrival of the search warrant

Cicchiello, J. v. Service Employee International

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2017

This illegal provision appears to have been inserted under the mistaken belief that Appellant needed twenty-five years of service in order to qualify for medical benefits, when in actuality she only needed fifteen. … Gray clearly stands for the proposition that the entitlement to relief pursuant to Rule 233.1 is not limited to identical claims; rather, the Rule requires only that the claims are related.

Estate of Brawner, T., Appeal of: Wise, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2017

This letter is clearly related to the sale of the real estate, and Appellant attended the closing with George Brawner on June 9, 2014. … However, the documentary evidence that showed George Brawner was properly advised regarding a one-third distribution, which he clearly ignored.

Hempt Bros, Inc. v. Myers, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2021

The reasonably qualifier is important: there is no ambiguity if one of the two proffered meanings is unreasonable. … Myers asserts that the evidence clearly established that Hempt’s claim for unpaid expenses failed to account for payments Myers issued and, therefore, Hempt’s damage claims were inaccurate. Id. at 56.

Ames, A. v. Gallagher, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2018

Therefore, the IUPC data clearly indicated the need for a Caesarian section. Id. at 8. … Curran qualified at trial as a defense expert in obstetrics and gynecology.

Com. v. Rookstool, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2021

court broad discretion, and we will only reverse a trial - 21 - J-S06026-21 court's decision to admit or deny evidence on a showing that the trial court clearly … This determination is critical to any discussion of the legality of the restitution portion of Appellant’s sentence. 12 Specifically, applying the pre-2018 version of Section 1106, our Supreme Court held that “to qualify

Com. v. Dang, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2023

Thus, Appellant’s argument does not qualify as a claim regarding the legality of his sentence. … Court will vacate a sentence imposed within the sentencing guidelines but the trial court “applied the guidelines erroneously” or where “the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly

Com. v. Zaledzieski, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2015

Moreover, as a matter of plain meaning, "filing" is clearly distinct from "litigating." … Sergeant Stack was not qualified as an expert but testified merely as a lay witness. [See N.T. 5/25/93, at 304.]

Com. v. Newcomb, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2023

Appellant additionally suggests that J.N. had a motive to fabricate the allegations, “as she was clearly angry with her father for abandoning the family,” and “her terminology was not unexpected . . . as she was 15 or … seeking disclosure to establish that an exception to the privilege exists which would allow the disclosure.”

Com. v. H.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2020

For example, in Hernandez, a panel of this Court held that “a pediatrician ..., qualified as a medical expert, may testify that the physical facts observed and reported by the treating physician were consistent … In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.

Hedlund, T. v. Rosenberg, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2019

Before addressing the merits, we must establish whether Mother has properly preserved these issues for our review. Mother was obligated to file a concise statement of errors, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). … 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 the best qualified to

Nicholas Meat, LLC. v. Pgh Logistics Systems

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2022

Clearly, this requirement implied that PLS — as a broker — would verify the information provided by prospective carriers. We also conclude PLS’s reliance on Marx is misplaced. … To hold that suit can be maintained against carriers only would impose absolute liability on carriers while granting non-carrier entities de facto immunity for all torts they commit in effecting interstate

In Re: S.R.S., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2017

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 … of each case and consider all explanations offered by the parent facing termination of…her parental rights, to determine if the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances, clearly

In the Interest of: J.G., Appeal of: J.G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 2021

The court established reunification as M.G.’s placement goal. Order of Adjudication & Disposition, 5/4/18, at 2. … “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).

MJ Byelich Properties v. JJL Normandy Properties

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2025

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish causation under Appellee’s theories of negligence, nuisance, and/or trespass. 2. … “A property owner is ‘deemed qualified, by reason of his relationship as owner, to give estimates of the value of what he owns regardless of his knowledge of property valued, and the weight of such evidence is for the