Case law

Petit, N. v. Petit, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2024

In addition to his regular W-2 earnings, Father’s compensation package included receipt of non-qualified Smart Sand restricted stock, which was reflected in his regular statement of earnings with income taxes withheld. … Case'law Clearly Pro••ides that Father' sWorkers' Compensation Award, NHL,.

Com. v. Crippen, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2020

Therefore the evidence was clearly available to Defendant as he is the individual who originally presented the name to police. Defendant's Post -Sentence Motion is denied for that reason. … if indigent, the 14 right to appeal in ihrma pattperis and to proceed with assigned counsel as provided in Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 122; and (d) the qualified

Com. v. White, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2022

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or … The rule’s three other sections clearly refer to post-sentencing proceedings after the court has already ordered costs at sentencing.

USAA Federal Savings v. Belfi, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2025

Therefore, Appellant cannot establish that the requested discovery would have aided in the establishment of any material fact. See Manzetti v. … Super. 2014) (summary judgment proper where “[t]he record . .. clearly shows that Bank of America holds the note”) .

Com. v. Nunez, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2025

With P.W.’s testimony establishing that Nunez walked into her room touching his penis while in Montgomery County, that act would qualify under the indecent exposure statute. … See N.T., 9/12/22, at 145-46 (P.W. indicating that she could clearly see Nunez “using his hand to touch” his penis as he was walking into her bedroom prior to the first assault).

Com. v. Thomas, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2016

Weiss, Esquire, an expert qualified by the Court to testify as a licensed real estate broker. … Plaintiffs, however, failed to meet their burden of proof to establish a violation of this section.

Corbin, A. v. Mays, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2022

For instance, the Child once received double immunizations because the parents were not on the same page. … The judge’s remarks in the case were clearly made in exasperation, and they may be rightly characterized as intemperate.

Com. v. Booher, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2022

Such evidence was necessary to establish that L.B. suffered serious bodily injury. It was uncontroverted that [Appellant] caused these burns to occur. … Esernio- Jenssen was qualified as an expert in the area of general pediatrics, child abuse, and child abuse concerning burns. She had reviewed L.B.’s case with Dr.

In the Interest of: A.E., Appeal of: D.D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2020

Jennifer Clarke, a child abuse pediatrician at the hospital — who was qualified as an expert in child advocacy and child abuse at the termination hearing — testified Child was “emaciated” and “had virtually no subcutaneous … He indicated that he was in medical school, nursing school, [and] a whole bunch of other things that . . . clearly seemed to be fabricated[.]

Com v. Ivy, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2021

He clearly established on multiple occasions that he was guilty of the offenses as stated in detail on multiple dates. … the plea is established.

In Re: Adoption of: B.L.I., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2017

I asked if they wanted to do phone calls and [Son] clearly said, no. N.T., 3/16/17, at 17-18. … The Agency established objectives for Mother, including: refrain from using illegal drugs and alcohol and maintain stable housing.

Com. v. Jamison, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2025

The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … A verdict is against the weight of the evidence where certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.

Com. v. Bailey, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2019

The standard for qualifying an expert witness is a liberal one: the witness need only have a reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on a subject for which expert … 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

Com. v. Rice, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2016

On that date, the trial court granted [Appellant’s] challenge to the proposed “death qualifying aggravating factors”. … Under these circumstances, prejudice need not be proven, as it can be clearly assumed.

Com. v. Wilson, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 2020

[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Appellant further contends that Mitchell’s statement was “inadmissible hearsay and [did] not qualify under the co-conspirator exception because an admission of culpability would by definition be incompatible with a statement

In Re: Dille Family Trust, Appeal of: Williams, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2024

Therefore, we find that Appellants have established that this is an interlocutory appeal as of right under Rule 342(a)(4). Turning to the merits, Appellants raise the following three claims: 1. … Where the rules of law on which the court relied are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court’s decree. In re Vincent J. Fumo Irrevocable Children’s Trust ex rel.

Com. v. Hall, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 2019

- 12 - J-S78035-18 A strategic difference between counsel and petitioner does not qualify as an “irreconcilable difference” warranting appointment of new counsel. … We conclude the court clearly erred in reviewing Appellant’s pro se issues on their own merits and declaring them preserved for appeal.

Com. v. Piner, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2015

Although these paragraphs do not use the words “consensual interceptions,” they clearly refer to them, for at least two reasons. … As discussed in detail hereinabove (see supra at pages 9–10), the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to establish Piner’s association with the drug trafficking organization operated from the Corner Bar in Altoona

Com. v. Seals, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2018

Thereafter, the Mazda first clearly appeared on the video when, at or near an intersection, it moved from the right lane to the left lane in front of Sergeant Weaver’s vehicle. … Appellees failed to establish an expectation of privacy in the Mazda.

W.R.K. v. C.A.K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2017

The court errored [sic] in its discretion by finding [Father] delayed Co-Parenting by exercising his right to a qualified co-parenting counselor (therapy) and ignored testimony and email evidence that [Mother … It is well established that [w]hile this [C]ourt is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, . . .