discretion hearing in Pennsylvania

2026“The question of the proper amount of a bond for a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the hearing court.” Broad and Locust Assocs. v. Locust-Broad Realty Co., 464 A.2d 506, 509 (Pa.Super. 1983). “[T]he bond amount is not set to cover ‘all damages’ but only those that are reasonably foreseeable.” Christo v. Tuscany, Inc., 533 A.2d 461, 467 (Pa.Super. 1987).

1998“The question of the proper amount of a bond for a prehminary injunction is within the discretion of the hearing court.” Broad & Locust Associates v. Locust-Broad Realty Co., 318 Pa. Super. 38, 44 , 464 A.2d 506, 509 (1983).

2022“A failure of the lower court to consider tess drastic alternatives before declaring a mistrial creates doubt about the exercise of the court's discretion and may bar Te-prosecution because of double jeopardy.” Commonwealth v. McCord, 700 A.2d 938, 943 (Pa.Super. 1997), * The Transcript as typed does not expressly indicate that it was Defendant’s trial counsel who was speaking, but the ha trisl context of the transcript makes that clear, and is confirmed by the Conrt’s awn independent recollection of the trial.

2011“A failure of the lower court to consider less drastic alternatives before declaring a mistrial creates doubt about the exercise of the court’s discretion and may bar re-prosecution because of double jeopardy.” McCord, supra at 943 .

1952The allowance of the amendment was a matter for the discretion of the hearing judge: See Pazdrak’s Contested Election, 288 Pa. 585 , 137 A. 109 ; Election Cases, 65 Pa. 20, 35 .

1952The allowance of the amendment was a matter for the discretion of the hearing judge: See Pazdrak’s Contested Election, 288 Pa. 585 , 137 A. 109 ; Election Cases, 65 Pa. 20, 35 .

2026“The question of the proper amount of a bond for a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the hearing court.” Broad and Locust Assocs. v. Locust-Broad Realty Co., 464 A.2d 506, 509 (Pa.Super. 1983). “[T]he bond amount is not set to cover ‘all damages’ but only those that are reasonably foreseeable.” Christo v. Tuscany, Inc., 533 A.2d 461, 467 (Pa.Super. 1987).

2023See Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 876 A.2d 939, 946 (Pa. 2005) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(C)).

2021Accordingly, pursuant to Lopez, a trial court has the discretion to hold a hearing regarding a defendant’s ability to pay costs at sentencing, but an ability-to-pay hearing is only required when “a defendant is in peril of going to prison for failing to pay the costs imposed on him.” Id. at 595; see also Snyder, 251 A.3d at 798 .

2021Accordingly, pursuant to Lopez, a trial court has the discretion to hold a hearing regarding a defendant’s ability to pay costs at sentencing, but an ability-to-pay hearing is only required when “a defendant is in peril of going to prison for failing to pay the costs imposed on him.” Id. at 595; see also Snyder, 251 A.3d at 798 .

2021See Commonwealth v. Pi Delta Psi, Inc., 211 A.3d 875, 885 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal denied, 221 A.3d 644 (Pa. 2019). - 13 - J-S47027-20 “It is well-settled that expert testimony on the issue of a witness’s credibility is impermissible, as it encroaches on the province of the jury to make such determinations.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 240 A.3d 881 , 896 (Pa. 2020) (citations omitted).

2019June 6, 2018) (unpublished memorandum) (quoting Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(6)). -4- J-S50012-19 (citing Lenhart v. Cigna Companies, 824 A.2d 1193, 1198 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“[T]he decision to allow the filing of post-trial motions nunc pro tunc is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court.”).

2018See Hamil, 392 A.2d at 1284 ; see also Baird, 169 A.3d at 124 .

2018See Hamil, 392 A.2d at 1284 ; see also Baird, 169 A.3d at 124 .

2017Kelly, 797 A.2d at 940 (emphasis added). 7 In McCord, this Court noted: A failure of the lower court to consider less drastic alternatives before declaring a mistrial creates doubt about the exercise of the court’s discretion and may bar re-prosecution because of double jeopardy.

2014Matakitis, 667 A.2d at 232 (citation omitted).

2013Young, 35 A.3d at 59 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

1998The purpose of the bond requirement is “merely to insure a ready source for payment of damages if due.” Juniata Foods Inc. v. Mifflin County Development Authority, 87 Pa. Commw. 127, 131 , 486 A.2d 1035, 1037 (1985).

1998The purpose of the bond requirement is “merely to insure a ready source for payment of damages if due.” Juniata Foods Inc. v. Mifflin County Development Authority, 87 Pa. Commw. 127, 131 , 486 A.2d 1035, 1037 (1985).

1997Phillippi 658 A.2d at 1370 ; Diehl, 532 Pa. at 216-218 , 615 A.2d at 691 ; Commonwealth v. Balog, 395 Pa.Super. 158, 163-165 , 576 A.2d 1092, 1095 (1990); Pa.R.Crim.P. 1118(b) (“When an event prejudicial to the defendant occurs during trial only the defendant may move for a mistrial; the motion shall be made when the event is disclosed.

1997Phillippi 658 A.2d at 1370 ; Diehl, 532 Pa. at 216-218 , 615 A.2d at 691 ; Commonwealth v. Balog, 395 Pa.Super. 158, 163-165 , 576 A.2d 1092, 1095 (1990); Pa.R.Crim.P. 1118(b) (“When an event prejudicial to the defendant occurs during trial only the defendant may move for a mistrial; the motion shall be made when the event is disclosed.

1995See, e.g., Easton Theatres v. Wells Fargo Land & Mortgage Co., Inc., 265 Pa.Super. 334, 352-53 , 401 A.2d 1333, 1343 (1979) (holding that a chancellor has broad power to shape relief according to the equities of the case, so long as his decision is founded on competent support in the record), appeal dismissed, 498 Pa. 557 , 449 A.2d 1372 (1982). *130 Since neither party has succeeded in establishing an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion or an error in law, we will not disturb the rulings below.

1995See, e.g., Easton Theatres v. Wells Fargo Land & Mortgage Co., Inc., 265 Pa.Super. 334, 352-53 , 401 A.2d 1333, 1343 (1979) (holding that a chancellor has broad power to shape relief according to the equities of the case, so long as his decision is founded on competent support in the record), appeal dismissed, 498 Pa. 557 , 449 A.2d 1372 (1982). *130 Since neither party has succeeded in establishing an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion or an error in law, we will not disturb the rulings below.

1995See, e.g., Easton Theatres v. Wells Fargo Land & Mortgage Co., Inc., 265 Pa.Super. 334, 352-53 , 401 A.2d 1333, 1343 (1979) (holding that a chancellor has broad power to shape relief according to the equities of the case, so long as his decision is founded on competent support in the record), appeal dismissed, 498 Pa. 557 , 449 A.2d 1372 (1982). *130 Since neither party has succeeded in establishing an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion or an error in law, we will not disturb the rulings below.

1995See, e.g., Easton Theatres v. Wells Fargo Land & Mortgage Co., Inc., 265 Pa.Super. 334, 352-53 , 401 A.2d 1333, 1343 (1979) (holding that a chancellor has broad power to shape relief according to the equities of the case, so long as his decision is founded on competent support in the record), appeal dismissed, 498 Pa. 557 , 449 A.2d 1372 (1982). *130 Since neither party has succeeded in establishing an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion or an error in law, we will not disturb the rulings below.

1992United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725-26 , 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138-39 , 16 L.Ed.2d 218, 227-28 (1966).

1992United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725-26 , 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138-39 , 16 L.Ed.2d 218, 227-28 (1966).