Case law

Com. v. Smith, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2015

Further: This balance is initially weighted toward the Commonwealth, which holds a qualified privilege to maintain an informant’s confidentiality to preserve the public’s interest … for admission of evidence is as follows: Admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly

Burda, S. v. Korenman, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2023

It is well-established that a court may modify or rescind any order within 30 days after its entry if no appeal has been taken. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505. … Additionally, with respect to this issue, Father baldly asserts in his argument that “Mother clearly admitted that she violated the order,” and that he “clearly showed that Mother violated [] provision 5 of the Order[.]

Com. v. Riojas, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2019

The failure to establish any of the three prongs is fatal to the claim. Id. at 113. … Clearly, an exhibit used to impeach the victim’s testimony did not signal Appellant’s guilt. Therefore, counsel was not required to consult with Appellant before entering into this stipulation either.

In The Interest of: S.P.Z., Appeal of: E.K. mother

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2018

“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). … Once the 12-month period has been established, the court must next determine whether the conditions that led to the child’s removal continue to exist, despite the reasonable good faith efforts of CYS supplied over a realistic

Rawl, M. v. Geico Indemnity Company

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2020

-5- J-A05027-20 Summary judgment is appropriate “when the record clearly shows that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment … Rawl’s employer, it also establishes that it was a replacement vehicle for a fleet vehicle that was being repaired. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/1/19, at 2-3.

Burda, S. v. Korenman, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2023

It is well-established that a court may modify or rescind any order within 30 days after its entry if no appeal has been taken. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505. … Additionally, with respect to this issue, Father baldly asserts in his argument that “Mother clearly admitted that she violated the order,” and that he “clearly showed that Mother violated [] provision 5 of the Order[.]

In Re: S.B., Appeal of: G.B.-C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2019

After careful review, however, we discern that the record clearly belies these claims. … He qualifies for special services with the IU8 preschool and has stabilized in their home significantly over the months of his placement.

Com. v. Davenport, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2016

The facts as set forth in the criminal complaint, to which Davenport agreed to,1 established that on August 28, 2014, the Lower Salford Township Police Department and the Montgomery County Detective Bureau were informed … It seems that Davenport argues that had she been sentenced properly she would have qualified to serve this sentence in a county facility as opposed to a statue institution.

Burda, S. v. Korenman, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2023

It is well-established that a court may modify or rescind any order within 30 days after its entry if no appeal has been taken. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505. … Additionally, with respect to this issue, Father baldly asserts in his argument that “Mother clearly admitted that she violated the order,” and that he “clearly showed that Mother violated [] provision 5 of the Order[.]

In the Int. of: B.G., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2026

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 … Maternal Grandmother provided explanations in her testimony as - 24 - J-S10017-26 J-S10018-26 to why she did not let DHS into her residence, which the trial court clearly found to

Com. v. Burgess, K., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2021

Defense counsel - 14 - J-S04022-21 objected that Detective Owens was not qualified to testify as to who possessed the Mike Jones phone, and that he was buttressing the Commonwealth … Construed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, this evidence clearly demonstrates that Appellant intended to furnish drugs to Miller with the victim acting as a go-between.

Com. v. Hurst, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 2026

Moreover, our Supreme Court has held that, “to establish a conflict of interest, an appellant must show [(1)] that counsel actively represented conflicting interests[,] and [(2)] the actual conflict adversely affected … Karenbauer, 715 A.2d 1086, 1094 (Pa. 1998) (“Where, as here, the record clearly demonstrates that counsel did not actively represent conflicting interests, a claim based on the appearance of a conflict of interest lacks

Com. v. Kearns, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2018

There can be no serious doubt that DCED, the agency designated to receive the restitution ordered in this case, does not qualify as a direct victim. … However, when establishing priorities, the court shall order payment in the following order: (A) The victim.

In the Int. of: W.P., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2023

Mother was in a relationship with the boyfriend, and he clearly stayed at Mother’s home for some measure of time, most notably when the Children were in the home during one of Mother’s visits. … To be clear, the Juvenile Act does not establish a litmus test that requires a juvenile court to alter the course of reunification, due simply to the amount of time a child has been in placement.

In the Int. of: M.I.M. a minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2014

The [orphans’ court] finds that [Father] has clearly failed to perform any parental duties, noting from [CYS’s] caseworker that I believe it was a total of five or six letters that [he had sent]; only one … On cross-examination, [Father] qualified his threats as a “misunderstanding”.

Oley, D. v. Oley, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2015

Bolinger, of Brown, Schultz, Sheridan & Fritz was qualified as an expert in forensic accounting and testified regarding Husband’s disposable income available for support. N.T., 11/14/13, at 7–8. Ms. … Wife argues that the testimony at the hearing established that the wages Husband received were clearly for services he rendered and not rental income. Id.

In Re: A.M. Appeal of: J.M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 2026

Bernstein, “a duly qualified expert in the child psychology field,” performed a virtual parental capacity assessment of Father on September 9, ____________________________________________ review sua sponte whether the … [Child] clearly trusts both [F]oster [P]arents and shares a close bond with them[.] Id.

Hennessy, P. v. Robertson, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2014

He argues that the ruling illustrates the trial court’s bias, and further that it prejudiced him because it “impeded his attempt to establish that . . . … The trial court found no foundational testimony establishing that Mr. Reikow was standing at a vantage point to view and estimate the speed of the Robertson vehicle. We find no abuse of discretion.

In the Int. of: W.P., Appeal of: W.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2025

strong case for a labor trafficking [-]based T visa.”).7 ____________________________________________ 7 T nonimmigrant status is a temporary immigration benefit, generally granted for four years; T nonimmigrants who qualify … Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as testimony testimony by credible witnesses who clearly relate facts that are so clear, direct

Com. v. Alvarado, O.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2017

against both parties and both parties moved to suppress all of the evidence resulting from the police encounter. 94 The court held that the Troopers pulling up to the Trans Am and making cursory inquiries qualified … Then the court must determine whether the conduct by law enforcement qualifies as "interrogation."