party bringing challenge in Pennsylvania

2019However, “[w]here the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.” Paden v. Baker Concrete Constr., Inc., 658 A.2d 341 , 343 (Pa. 1995)(citation omitted).

2019However, “[w]here the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.” Paden v. Baker Concrete Constr., Inc., 658 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa. 1995)(citation omitted).

2020Our Supreme Court has emphasized that, “[w]here the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.” Commonwealth v. Safka, 636 Pa. 169, 185 , 141 A.3d 1239, 1248 (2016).

2020Our Supreme Court has emphasized that, “[w]here the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.” Commonwealth v. Safka, 636 Pa. 169, 185 , 141 A.3d 1239, 1248 (2016).

2016As we have explained, “[wjhere the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.” Paden v. Baker Concrete Const., Inc., 540 Pa. 409 , 658 A.2d 341, 343 (1995) (quoting Echon v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 365 Pa. 529 , 76 A.2d 175, 178 (1950)), In this respect, “it is not suffi cient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion ...” Id.

2016As we have explained, “[wjhere the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.” Paden v. Baker Concrete Const., Inc., 540 Pa. 409 , 658 A.2d 341, 343 (1995) (quoting Echon v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 365 Pa. 529 , 76 A.2d 175, 178 (1950)), In this respect, “it is not suffi cient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion ...” Id.

2016An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused. * * * Glaab v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., 56 A.3d 693, 696-97 (Pa.Super. 2012) (quoting Chenot v. A.P.

2014An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused. * * * Glaab v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., 56 A.3d 693, 696-97 (Pa.Super. 2012) (quoting Chenot v. A.P.

1995As stated in Echon v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 365 Pa. 529, 534 , 76 A.2d 175, 178 (1950) (quoting Garrett’s Estate, 335 Pa. 287, 292-93 , 6 A.2d 858, 860 (1939)), When the court has come to a conclusion by the exercise of its discretion, the party complaining of it on appeal has a heavy burden; it is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion if, in the first place, charged with the duty imposed on the court below; it is necessary to go further and show an abuse of the discretionary power.

1995As stated in Echon v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 365 Pa. 529, 534 , 76 A.2d 175, 178 (1950) (quoting Garrett’s Estate, 335 Pa. 287, 292-93 , 6 A.2d 858, 860 (1939)), When the court has come to a conclusion by the exercise of its discretion, the party complaining of it on appeal has a heavy burden; it is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion if, in the first place, charged with the duty imposed on the court below; it is necessary to go further and show an abuse of the discretionary power.

2006On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, “we must examine the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Gutteridge, 804 A.2d at 651 . ¶ 8 In their appeal, the Gedmans argue that the trial court erred because the fact that the previous owner of the disputed property paid property taxes to North Fayette Township after the annexation constitutes a material fact that precludes summary judgment.

2005Green Servs., 804 A.2d 643, 651 (Pa.Super.2002). ‘Where the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.” Paden v. Baker Concrete Constr., Inc., 540 Pa. 409 , 658 A.2d 341, 343 (1995). [Ijt is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion if, in the first place, charged with the duty imposed on the court below; it is necessary to go further and show an abuse of the discretionary power.

2026“Where the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.... [I]t is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion if, in the first place, charged with the duty imposed on the court below; it is necessary to go further and show an abuse of the discretionary power.” -9- J-S34041-25 Commonwealth v. Wesley, 860 A.2d 585, 589 (Pa. Super. 2004), quoting Commonwealth v. Garcia, 661 A.2d 1388, 1394-95 (Pa. Super. 1995).

2026“Where the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.... [I]t is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion if, in the first place, charged with the duty imposed on the court below; it is necessary to go further and show an abuse of the discretionary power.” -9- J-S34041-25 Commonwealth v. Wesley, 860 A.2d 585, 589 (Pa. Super. 2004), quoting Commonwealth v. Garcia, 661 A.2d 1388, 1394-95 (Pa. Super. 1995).

2025Where the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden. . . . [I]t is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion if, in the first place, charged with the duty imposed on the court below; it is necessary to go further and show an abuse of the discretionary power[.] Commonwealth v. Williams, 91 A.3d 240, 248-49 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (quotation marks, some indentations, and citations omitted).

2020Schmalz v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., 67 A.3d 800, 802-03 (Pa.Super. 2013). - 10 - J-A06018-20 Where the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.

2016Commonwealth v. Tejeda, 834 A.2d 619, 623-24 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations and quotations omitted).

2015“Where the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.” Kinney, supra at 753 (citation omitted).

2007Dist. v. Gedman, 894 A.2d 135, 139 (Pa.Super.2006) (citations omitted). ¶ 6 Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2 is stated, in pertinent part, as follows: Rule 1035.2.

2006Miller v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 753 A.2d 829, 832 (Pa.Super.2000) (internal citations omitted). ‘Where the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.” Paden v. Baker Concrete Constr., Inc., 540 Pa. 409 , [412,] 658 A.2d 341, 343 (1995) (citation omitted). [I]t is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion if... charged with the duty imposed on the court below; it is necessary to go further and show an abuse of the discretionary power.

2004See Commonwealth v. Gray, 441 Pa. 91, 271 A.2d 486 (1970); Commonwealth v. Toney, 439 Pa. 173 , 266 A.2d 732 (1970) (noting that before the enactment of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1116(b) (now Rule 604), the order of closing arguments was left to the discretion of the trial judge, and the rule was intended to make the practice uniform throughout the Commonwealth); Commonwealth v. McCarty, 280 Pa.Super. 102 , 421 A.2d 425 (1980). ¶ 9 As this Court explained in Garcia, supra: Where the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden .... [

2004See Commonwealth v. Gray, 441 Pa. 91, 271 A.2d 486 (1970); Commonwealth v. Toney, 439 Pa. 173 , 266 A.2d 732 (1970) (noting that before the enactment of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1116(b) (now Rule 604), the order of closing arguments was left to the discretion of the trial judge, and the rule was intended to make the practice uniform throughout the Commonwealth); Commonwealth v. McCarty, 280 Pa.Super. 102 , 421 A.2d 425 (1980). ¶ 9 As this Court explained in Garcia, supra: Where the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden .... [