Case law

Com. v. Newton, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2022

The defendant had established that the victim struck him in the head with a cane immediately following a failed drug purchase. … Clearly, there was passion involved here, but the passion is not the ultimate test for the judge to determine because that's a subjective - - you're looking at subjectively what is in the

Com. v. Guarrasi, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2016

I think there's payment for work, and I think there's payment clearly for the solicitation." N.T. 10/10/13, pp. 114-15. … Caselaw dictates that the elements of burglary or attempted burglary are as follows: " .. .intent to commit a felony or any qualified crime within the burglarized premises." Commonwealth v.

M.K. v. R.L.K., Jr. Appeal of: M.K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2017

Mother clearly misreads our law, which requires a trial court to consider the custody factors only when awarding any of the seven forms of custody listed above. … Page 5 of 23 ·  Pittman is a highly qualified and well-regarded professional in the area, her testimony in this particular case appears to this Court to be possibly biased.

Z.S. v. J.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2019

Mother testified that she, along with the assistance of Maternal Grandparents, would be responsible for paying tuition, and hoped to also qualify for financial aid from the school. Ms. … Super. 2014) (“[T]he choice of a child’s school may factor into a trial court’s decision to award a form of custody when the trial court is addressing a request to establish or change legal or physical custody in connection

Schoch, R. v. Perez, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2022

The primary source of dispute arises from the fact that Father is estranged from Child and is seeking to establish a relationship. Mother strenuously objects to any effort that furthers Father’s goal. … While a trial court has the power to take certain explicitly delineated actions after an appeal has been filed, a “major substantive change, such as the total withdrawal of an order relative to a motion of record” does not qualify

K.M. v. C.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2018

Arnold Shienvold is qualified and contradicted, and therefore the [c]ourt was under no obligation to consider the expert’s opinion. … Mother clearly pushed Father’s buttons, but failed to demonstrate a nexus between Father’s anger management and the child’s safety.

Com. v. Newnam, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2019

When reviewing a grant of a suppression motion, the appropriate scope and standard of review are as follows: [W]here a motion to suppress has been filed, the burden is on the Commonwealth to establish … Here, the officers clearly told Newnam the direction and purpose of their questioning after they advised him of his Miranda rights but, critically, before they began their interrogation.