Case law

Com. v. Orrostieta, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2018

Appellant smelled of alcohol, but he spoke clearly and was responsive to questions. An autopsy by Dr. … Thus, the minimal threshold that expert testimony must meet to qualify as an expert opinion rather than merely an opinion expressed by an expert, is this: the proffered expert testimony must point

In the Interest of: M.L., a Minor Appeal of: D.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2017

On November 9, 2015, at [a] dispositional hearing[,] the [c]ourt established a goal of reunification with a concurrent goal of adoption. … in his commission of burglary; (6) consistent misrepresentation to [CYS] and this [c]ourt concerning his attendance at anger management and mental health counseling; and (7) an attitude evidencing a clearly

In the Interest of: J.R., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2017

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 … Because these facts were clearly and convincingly established by the credible testimony of DHS's witness, the court's change of permanency goal from reunification to adoption was proper.

In the Int of: K.L., Appeal of: Support Center for

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2022

-8- J-A17017-22 advocating placement with R.T., which Appellant asserts was in J.O.’s best interest and consistent with J.O.’s clearly expressed wishes. … The Court concluded that 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(a)(2)(i) permits the trial court to place the child with anyone that the court finds to be qualified to receive and care for the child, “without regard to whether the individual

Dilworth, A. v. Dilworth, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2026

might qualify for qualify for services for services for services for reasons for reasons of … and qualifies for qualifies for special for special education.

Com. v. Harris, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2016

After testifying to his training, experience and background, Chief Goshert was qualified as an expert in street level drug trafficking without objection. … Instead, “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 is to deny justice.”

K.F-M. v. J.W.M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2017

The parties came to a custody agreement on June 16, 2016, which established that they would share equal custody of the children. … We noted that Section 6107(c) of the Act, entitled “Continued hearings,” clearly contemplated that a hearing under Section 6107 could be continued and therefore that the defendant’s “contrary interpretation of the trial

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

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2022

He noted that if he was redoing an evaluation, clearly all of the information that was demonstrated to be of questionable accuracy, clearly false information, would need to be provided to him. … Adoption has been clearly established as the appropriate goal in the best interest of this Child and is best suited to for her safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare.

A.D.W. v. F.W., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2017

Mother’s income from her part-time employment is insufficient to qualify for refinancing of the mortgage. … Mother's income from her part-time employment is insufficient to qualify for refinancing of the mortgage.

Baumgardner, H. v. Sofitel and Accor North America

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2019

Further, the Note to this Rule clearly affords Appellant no relief here, as it specifically states that if no objection is made, then an "error which could have been corrected ... during trial by timely objection may not … The "except as otherwise provided by law" qualifier includes the principle that relevant evidence may be excluded "if its probative value is outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing

Adoption of: A.S.E., Appeal of: C.L.H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2025

Nurse Couse testified she was unable to establish a working relationship with Mother because of her behaviors and hostility. Id. … Peter von Korff, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, was qualified as an expert in adult psychology with a specialization in bond assessments. Id. at 39. Dr.

S. Packirisamy v. B. Suresh

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2021

- 39 - J-S09001-21 standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself[, or herself,] is best qualified to gauge his[, or her,] ability to preside impartially … Prothonotary Date: 8/20/2021 ____________________________________________ court that Father “has clearly been responsible for much of the delay” in bringing this matter to closure.

MPower Software Serv. v. American Water Works

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2019

[Section] 10.1 clearly intends for reasonable attorney[s’] fees to be treated as “expenses.” … A packaged application qualified for payment when it successfully passed UAT. A package was “deemed accepted” if AW did not UAT it within fifteen days.

Com. v. Rosser, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2021

A prima facie case was established at a preliminary hearing, and corresponding bills of information had been prepared. … Contrary to the appellate claim as stated, no viable motivation for this clearly traumatized child to have fabricated anything had been presented.

D.F.F., Jr. v. B.E.F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2019

In Mother’s second issue, she faults the trial court for discounting the testimony of the expert witness, Chad Schaeffer, C.A.D.C., who was qualified as an expert by Father’s counsel, and testified with regard to Father … Schaeffer conceded that Mother’s “testimony more than any other source of information established that pattern, established that pattern [of abuse] more solidly than any other piece of information.” Id. at 42.

Porter, R. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 2017

Rule 702 provides as follows: 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: … It was Appellant's burden to establish all of the elements of Rule 702 for the admission of Dr. Cabrera's expert report. See Pa.R.E. 702.

Com. v. Peterson, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2019

Defendant could not fully communicate the events leading up to the crime and therefore no plea should have been entered without an adjudication of competency by a qualified … In order to do so he must establish that he was either unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him or to participate in his own defense. Com. v.

Com. v. A.J.H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2016

K.H. drew pictures for Davis at his request to ensure that he understood her clearly. Id. at 154, 158. … Primarily, we are not convinced the testimony even qualifies as recanted testimony. As already noted, K.H. has developmental learning issues.

Angle, R. v. Smith, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2017

Smith informed Angle that the Smiths would pay Angle the past amounts due even if they did not qualify for a new mortgage on the Property. See id. … Angle's$ 7,740.19 calculation of the Smiths' liability for unpaid rent and property taxes is approximately the same amount as the $7,500 settlement offer, and clearly constitutes a bargained for exchange.

Smith, J. v. United States Liability Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2018

Credible testimony established that Smith authorized Cynthia McDonough to sign and submit the application for the Policy. See N.T. 11/2/16 at 126. … Here, Smith's conviction for filing false tax returns and conspiracy both qualify as crimen falsi which USLI utilized on cross after Smith appeared to not recall his prior convictions. See N.T. 11/2/16 at 94.