Case law

B v. o/b/o T v. a Minor v. J.W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2020

She is highly qualified to representthe best interests ofT:V. At the time of this hearing, however, Attorney Mccambridge did not have the benefit of reviewing the CAC/NEPA video ofT.V.' … Thus, Plaintiff and Defendant clearly stipulated to the admissibility of the CAC/NEPA forensic interview and Plaintiffs video of T.V. 's statements.

Com. v. Ungard, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2021

Clearly, Appellant did not wish to proceed to trial on these charges since he believed the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. … Thus, the Commonwealth need not be successful in its interlocutory appeal to establish due diligence for the purposes of Rule 600.

Perez, J. v. Maroon, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2020

Welch[, M.D.], to establish the same as a matter of law.” … Perez’s failure to clearly include it in her Rule 1925(b) concise statement.

Com. v. Brenner, I.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2021

The failure to establish any of the three prongs is fatal to the claim. Id. at 113. … The Smith Court characterized the actions of the district attorney as egregious and clearly undertaken in bad faith.

Com. v. Wilkins, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2025

The The record record established that established that R.B. … established that established that R.B., R.B., K.B., K.B., and and Q.B.

In the Interest of: M.R.M., A Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2019

“These 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). … Adoption has been clearly established as the appropriate goal in the best interest of these Children, and adoption by 45

International Management Consultants v. Sea-z

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2017

To qualify as a substantially prevailing party under CASPA, a party need not only recover on _______________________ (Footnote Continued) N.T. Non-Jury Trial, at 11/5/15, at 98-99. … Here, Sea- Z was clearly the verdict winner in its breach of contract counterclaim where the court found that IMC breached the contract and judgment was entered in Sea-Z’s favor. Profit Wize, supra.

In re: Eva G. Sellers

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2017

Initially, Fischer contends that the evidence established a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the scope of the power of attorney such that the trial court erred when it granted C. … Sellers may have qualified, this order does not. Similarly, this order denying Fischer’s motion for partial summary judgment does not interpret, modify, reform, or terminate a trust.

P.J.A. v. H.C.N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2018

Although the court’s order was entered after a full hearing, it clearly was not intended to constitute a complete resolution of the issues pending between the parties. … Neither [Mother] nor [Father] are qualified to review a psychological data, as I’m sure you also know.

Smith, J. v. Main Line Animal Rescue

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2019

Rockwell Int'l Corp., 442 A.2d 213, 216 (Pa. 1981) (“Words which standing alone may reasonably be understood as defamatory may be so explained or qualified by their context as to make such an interpretation unreasonable. … While embarrassment and personal offense understandably could flow from such base and ignoble commentary, this second post nevertheless is no more than a farcical addition to an already patently satirical theme clearly

W.S. and E.S. v. M.S. and J.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2019

Said order also clearly contemplates continued treatment and therapeutic intervention for the Children under Dr. … Rule 311 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure sets forth the types of interlocutory orders that qualify. See also Pa. R.A.P. 311. Among other things, Rule 311 states: (a) General rule.

R.W.M. v. S.M.F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2016

(5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of either party to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the other party. … However, Husband was not qualified as an expert and provided no evidence of these claims, and the trial court doubted their accuracy. Trial Ct. Order, 6/23/16, at 6; Trial Ct. Op. at 27.

Com. v. Palumbo, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2017

While the passive act of raising one’s arms to prevent blows constitutes self-defense in a colloquial sense, we hold that it does not qualify as such in the legal sense. … The Commonwealth’s version established that Maurer, frustrated with the situation, approached Miller, which resulted in a verbal altercation. Id. at 1075-76.

Belke, D. v. Belke, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2022

Ex-Wife reiterates that the testimony at the divorce master’s hearings clearly established that Ex- Husband’s relationship with Ms. Jordan began prior to the parties’ separation. … This intent comes through quite clearly.

Kilkenny, R. v. Kilkenny, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2023

According to Mother, “[a] qualified professional for mental health never saw [K.K.]” Id. Mother argues that she “sent the endocrinologist at CHOP what the doctor required.” Id. … Super. 2005) (holding “[i]t is clearly within the court’s discretion whether to order an evaluation”).

Com. v. Jonnala, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 2024

Jonnala points to testimony presented concerning his reputation in the community for law-abidingness and honesty, as well as immunity from prosecution for reports of child abuse made in good faith and the presumption of … Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts

Berg, D. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2018

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter of January 12, 1999 clearly precipitated Appellant’s January 13, 1999 letter to Summit Bank ____________________________________________ 22 The trial court consistently refers to Appellant … The company provides full and qualified legal representation to the customer. All of this is promised by the insurance company. Id. at 24-26.

Locke, T. v. Fox Chase Cancer Center

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2020

Locke was diagnosed with a “complicated” urinary tract infection (UTI) due to her being a recent surgical -3- J-A10017-20 patient with cancer and locally impaired immune function … The charges clearly stated the law and there was no prejudicial omission of something basic or fundamental.

Rhoads, C. v. Hoops, S., CNM

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2019

Relevantly, Defendants argued that Hoops, individually, was entitled to a compulsory nonsuit, because Rhoads’s standard-of-care expert was not qualified to express expert opinions as to Hoops, and Rhoads’s counsel had … According to Rhoads, “the jury clearly took into consideration the causation element when it decided the breach element.” Id. Again, Rhoads cites only to an expansive range of testimony from Dr.

Com. v. Atkinson, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2021

Trial and sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the illegal sentence the court was imposing as clearly unconstitutional in light of Supreme Court ruling in Alleyne any “ … In Alleyne, the United States Supreme Court established that "[a]ny fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an 'element' that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt."