Case law

Com. v. Dowdy, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2018

A substantive right is defined as a right to equal enjoyment of fundamental rights, privileges and immunities, as distinguished from a procedural right. Sanchez, 716 A.2d at 1224. … “[Pennsylvania] Rule [of Criminal Procedure 204] provides, clearly and simply, that a search warrant shall be served by a law enforcement officer.

Nicholas, K. v. McDonald, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2023

present the following issues for our consideration: (1) Whether the [trial c]ourt improperly relied on testimony that the parties and the [trial c]ourt stipulated could not be used to establish … The Defendants were clearly aware of the deteriorated interior walls in the bedroom.

Williams Pontiac Co. v. Patriot Buick Pontiac

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2018

In determining the intent of the parties to a written agreement, the court looks to what they have clearly expressed, for the law does not assume that the language of the contract was chosen carelessly. … conducted for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified

Com. v. Cager, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2017

ruling regarding the admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly … possibility that such expert testimony on the limited issue of eyewitness identification as raised in this appeal may be admissible, at the discretion of the trial court, and assuming the expert is qualified

Com. v. Neal, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2020

Nurse Reyes, who qualified as an expert SANE nurse, testified that, at the beginning of the examination, the victim was crying and recounted the facts summarized above. … That exception is clearly not applicable to this case. See Commonwealth v. Al/bum, 721 A.2d 363, 367 (Pa. Super. 1998).

Com. v. Santiago, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2020

“The trial court has broad discretion in phrasing its instructions so long as the law is clearly, adequately and accurately presented to the jury.” Id. … The Pursell Court specifically stated: “We will not require courts considering PCRA petitions to struggle through the pro se filings of defendants when qualified counsel represent those defendants.” Id., at 302.

Com. v. Smallwood, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2017

“[T]he Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty.” Commonwealth v. … This evidence establishes that Appellant was justified in using a reasonable amount of force to protect himself.

Com. v. Crawford, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2016

Scott observes the Supreme Court held that the evidence clearly established the defendant did fear immediate danger of death. … The evidence collected at the scene clearly established the presence of two weapons, one used by James Roche and one typically used by the defendant. 54  Holly Crawford called

Com. v. Peters, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2014

Moreover, the record establishes that Petitioner was provided with discovery multiple times. … The damage to the cell phone was clearly established by testimonial and documentary evidence, as set forth above. (N.T., Trial at 117-18,125-26,127,179,245; Com. Exs. 5 & 11.)

In Re: Estate of Augustine, J., Appeal of: Nensel

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2017

calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified … In re Mampe, 932 A.2d at 963., Respondents clearly acted as advisors, counselors and confidants, and inspired confidence in their mother that they would act in good faith for her interests.

In the Interest of: E.C.F., III, a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2016

“These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” - 17 - J-S49045-16 In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 978 (Pa. … The record also establishes that Mother does not have the capacity or skills to care for and keep the Children safe on a full-time basis.

Com. v. Tuck, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2024

After his hostility to the prosecution was soundly established, Mr. … Furthermore, this Comt Court clearly stated that the statement made by Mr. Brunson only applies to Mr. Brunson.

Com. v. Vargas, R., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2019

It is well-established that counsel is presumed effective. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 ( 1984). … The Commonwealth enjoys a qualified privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential source unless and until a defendant establishes that the identity of the informant is material to the preparation of the defense

Com. v. Groves, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2020

The gun was submitted to a qualified ballistics expert, who determined it was functioning, capable of firing, and contained five undischarged cartridges. … The court believes several aggravating factors clearly applied to the sentencing decision.

Com. v. Williams, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2023

It was established that no other individuals were in the area. Ms. Cunningham likewise testified that she saw the men standing together and, as she approached her vehicle, she heard the first shot. … Corporal Andrew Pannelle, qualified as an expert in the field of latent print examination, examined the .357 Sturm Ruger, and determined that there were no identifiable latent fingerprints on the firearm.'

In Re: Adoption of: M.M.L.R., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2018

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 … The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so.

In the Interest of: T.N.R., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2017

The report also alleged that Child weight was within normal range and she was up to date on immunizations; that it was unknown if Child's condition had worsened due to the missed medical appointments; that Child received … The record established by clear and convincing evidence that the change of permanency goal from reunification to adoption was proper.

Mark Coal Street Assoc. v. Hassey, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2023

The “reasonably” qualifier is important: there is no ambiguity if one of the two proffered meanings is unreasonable. … And, “[t]he lower court’s opinion clearly references the anticipation of the parties in negotiations, which is outside the four corners of the documents. (See Appendix “A” at p. 8).” Appellants’ Reply Br. at 10.

In The Int. of: Z.S v. Appeal of: D.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2018

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 … [Mother] is able to acknowledge her role in [Child]’s trauma history, we’re sitting here today, that still hasn’t been established

Estate of Schermer, E., Appeal of: Schermer, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2017

Rosenwasser reported that Evelyn appeared lucid and did not display short-term memory loss during their conferences, but qualified his testimony by stating that their interactions totaled “four or five hours not in a block … Bernstein’s clearly articulated that these opinions were based upon his review of her medical records. He thereafter discussed the informed consent protocols. See N.T. Hearing, 5/8/15, at 900, et seq.