Case law

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.

Com. v. Naples. D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2018

We reject his claim that this qualifies as a previously unknown fact. Appellant’s Brief at 14. … We determine that it qualifies for none. The issue has no merit. We conclude that the PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition without a hearing.

Com. v. Owens, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2017

"His waiver is not partial; having once cast aside the cloak of immunity, he may not resume it at will, whenever cross-examination may be inconvenient or embarrassing." Molina, 104 A.3d at 447 (quoting Raffel v. … Clearly, the jury did not find Defendant's version of events to be credible.

Com. v. Long, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2020

It says clearly that the search is of a phone number, which belongs to the carrier and is bought or rented by the user. The phone belongs to the user. … In considering whether a statement qualifies as an excited utterance, courts may consider 1) whether the declarant, in fact, witnessed the startling event; 2) the time that elapsed between the startling event

Com. v. Lee, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2023

Moreover, [Appellant] was established as the shooter in the conspiracy. … We find that the trial court’s conclusions are supported by competent evidence and are clearly free of legal error.

In the Int. of: B.D., Appeal of: N.D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2020

It is well established that “goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.” In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 345 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted). … Furthermore, in a goal change proceeding, the “statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interest of the child.” In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 978 (Pa. Super. 2008).

Calkins, M. v. Butz, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2017

This change comported with the Kasychs’ desire, as expressed in their wills, for their estates to qualify for the federal estate tax charitable deduction. … We will affirm the grant of such a motion only when the moving party’s right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt that the trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise.

In the Int. of: G.M.S., Appeal of: M.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 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).

Com. v. Turner, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2018

Any such contention as discussed above has been clearly rejected by the Superior Court and that appellate court's clear direction official oppression28 " ... … The legislature has clearly provided for this coverage with the broad language of the statute. Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Bell, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2018

Thus, the holding of this opinion does not permit law enforcement to open mail, such as sealed envelopes or packages, without a warrant or a clearly recognized exception to the warrant requirement. … - 18 - J-S02045-18 Neither the requisite danger nor potential for destruction of evidence existed that would qualify as such restricted circumstances requiring prompt

In the Int. of: A.M., Appeal of: L.N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2022

Although Counsel’s petition does not state that he made a conscientious examination of the record and has determined Father’s appeal would be frivolous, his Anders brief clearly sets forth these … Father failed to offer any evidence establishing the existence of a parent-child bond.

Com. v. Perretta-Rosepink, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2015

“[A] statute will not be found unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution. … Looking at the plain language of the statute, the Court concluded that while it appeared that the legislature sought to include government agencies within Section 1106, it was not clear exactly which agencies qualified

Estate of: Kane, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2017

Additionally, “[n]o statute shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly.” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1926. … If a qualified answer was given to the question, appellant shall indicate the nature of the qualification, or if the question was not answered or addressed and the record shows the reason for such

Com. v. Smith, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2020

because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill- will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly … In essence, Appellant contends that because the Detective, who was qualified as an expert, based his opinion on all of the facts of the case, he was unable to render an opinion based on those facts.14 Our Superior

Estate of: Vonneuman, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2022

Prekopa was Decedent’s nephew and one of the beneficiaries but was also successor executor if Decedent’s husband failed to qualify. Decedent’s husband died in March 2011 at age 99. … The Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly state that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority. Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Williams, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2017

Importantly, "facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence." Mack, 850 A.2d at 693 (quoting DiStefano, 782 A.2d at 582). … recommended by the Franklin County Probation Office, and failed, with out [sic] reasonable basis, to make Williams eligible for a boot camp and/or State SIP sentence, both of which [Defendant] qualified

In Re: A.S., Appeal of: L.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2022

A court may not separate a child from his or her parent “unless it finds that the separation is clearly necessary.” In re G.T., supra at 873 (citation omitted). … CYS has failed to present clear and convincing evidence to establish dependency and has failed to make reasonable efforts to prevent the separation of the mother and child. Id.

Zadok Grahm Hunly Corp v. Presbyterian Seniorcare

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2023

The Longwood Management Agreement required Sodexo to provide Longwood with a qualified General Manager to function as the head of Longwood’s maintenance department. … McCollum quickly established himself as an integral part of the unit turnover process.

Com. v. Bailey, F., III

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2018

-7- J-S70032-17 1993), appeal denied, 652 A.2d 1321 (Pa. 1994),4 our research has revealed that even overnight guests, which Bailey could presumably qualify as, do possess a … may choose its court has broad discretion in phrasing its instructions, and own wording so long as the law is clearly

In the Int. of: K.F.C., Appeal of: D.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2022

At the March 29, 2022 hearing, it was stipulated that William Russell, Ph.D., was qualified as an expert in the area of parental capacity. Dr. … Father also contends that DHS did not establish “any nexus between the fact that he tested positive for cocaine and his ability or willingness to parent the Children.” (Id. at 22).