crucial test in Pennsylvania

2026In determining whether a seizure has occurred, courts apply the following objective test: “[t]o guide the crucial inquiry as to whether or not a seizure has been effected, the United States Supreme Court has devised an objective test entailing a determination of whether, in view of all surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that he was free to leave.” Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884, 889 (Pa. 2000).

2025In determining whether a seizure has occurred, courts apply the following objective test: - 10 - J-S05038-25 [t]o guide the crucial inquiry as to whether or not a seizure has been effected, the United States Supreme Court has devised an objective test entailing a determination of whether, in view of all surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that he was free to leave.” Commonwealth v. Strickler, 563 Pa. 47 , 757 A.2d 884, 889 (2000).

2021If there is any uncertainty as to whether an individual has been seized, “the crucial inquiry is whether the officer, ‘by means of physical force or a show of authority,’ has restrained a citizen’s freedom of movement.” Livingstone, supra at 619 (quoting Mendenhall, supra at 553 ).

2019Id. at 553 , 100 S.Ct. 1870 ; Strickler , supra at 890.

2024However, it is proper for a trial court to admit evidence of prior abusive acts not raised in the PFA petition because “[p]ast abusive conduct on [Appellant’s] part [is] a crucial inquiry necessary for entry of a proper order.” Raker, 847 A.2d at 726 (citations omitted). -6- J-S25004-24 Father argues that there is “compelling evidence” that Mother used the PFA process “as a tool in [their] contentious custody litigation” because she filed the PFA petition three weeks after learning that he threatened to break the children’s fingers, but only two days before his custody periods were scheduled t

2020This Court has stated that “[p]ast abusive conduct on the [defendant’s] part [is] a crucial inquiry necessary for entry of a proper order.” Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050 , 1059 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (citing Raker, 847 A.2d at 726 ).

2013As Appellants noted, in Mature v. Angelo, 373 Pa. 593 , 97 A.2d 59 (1953), our Supreme Court held that, under the borrowed servant doctrine: The crucial test in determining whether a servant furnished by one person to another becomes the employe of the person to whom he is loaned is whether he passes under the latter’s right of control with regard not only to the work to be done but also to the manner of performing it.

2013As Appellants noted, in Mature v. Angelo, 373 Pa. 593 , 97 A.2d 59 (1953), our Supreme Court held that, under the borrowed servant doctrine: The crucial test in determining whether a servant furnished by one person to another becomes the employe of the person to whom he is loaned is whether he passes under the latter’s right of control with regard not only to the work to be done but also to the manner of performing it.

1985The crucial test in determining the presence of probable cause is whether ‘the facts and circumstances known to the police or about which they have reasonably trustworthy information at the time of the arrest ... would warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing the suspect has committed or is committing a crime.’ Commonwealth v. Bartlett, 486 Pa. 396, 400 , 406 A.2d 340, 341 (1979); Commonwealth v. Stokes, 480 Pa. 38 , 389 A.2d 74 (1978); Commonwealth v. Pytak, 278 Pa.Superior Ct. 476, 420 A.2d 640 (1980).

1985The crucial test in determining the presence of probable cause is whether ‘the facts and circumstances known to the police or about which they have reasonably trustworthy information at the time of the arrest ... would warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing the suspect has committed or is committing a crime.’ Commonwealth v. Bartlett, 486 Pa. 396, 400 , 406 A.2d 340, 341 (1979); Commonwealth v. Stokes, 480 Pa. 38 , 389 A.2d 74 (1978); Commonwealth v. Pytak, 278 Pa.Superior Ct. 476, 420 A.2d 640 (1980).

2025Past abusive conduct on the appellant’s part was a crucial inquiry necessary for entry of a proper order. -7- J-A24009-25 Id. (emphasis added, citation omitted); see also Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050 , 1059 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (same).

2021Custer, 933 A.2d at 1058 . -7- J-A23043-21 Although Appellant argues that the trial court erred in part in considering Appellee’s testimony to past abuse, this Court has recognized that [p]ast abusive conduct on the [defendant's] part [is] a crucial inquiry necessary for entry of a proper order.

2025The crucial factors are that letters had been requested and the action commenced within the statutory period, and [the plaintiff’s] appointment as administratrix, under the circumstances of this case, “was substantially assured at the time the complaint was filed, . . . within the statutory period of limitations.” D’Orazio, 406 A.2d at 552 , quoting McGuire, 385 A.2d at 468. -9- J-E01003-24 Not long after D’Orazio, our Supreme Court addressed a similar scenario in Estate of Gasbarini v. Medical Ctr. of Beaver Cnty., 409 A.2d 343 (Pa. 1979).

2023The crucial factors are that letters had been requested and the action commenced within the statutory period, and [the plaintiff’s] appointment as administratrix, under the circumstances of this case, “was substantially assured at the time the complaint was filed, ... within the statutory period of limitations.” D’Orazio, 406 A.2d at 552 (quoting McGuire, 385 A.2d at 468 ).

2023Id. at 1259 .

2006In light of the protective purposes of the Act, it was within the trial court’s discretion to hear any relevant evidence that would assist it in its obligation to assess the appellee’s entitlement to and need for a protection from abuse order.. . . [p]ast abusive conduct on the appellant’s part was a crucial inquiry necessary for entry of a proper order.” Miller on behalf of Walker v. Walker , 445 Pa. Super, at 552, 665 A.2d at 1259 .

1953The crucial test in determining whether a servant furnished by one person to another becomes the employe of the person to whom he is loaned is whether he passes under the latter's right of control with regard not only to the work to be done but also to the manner of performing it : Venezia v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 317 Pa. 557, 559 , 177 A. 25, 26 ; Walters v. Kaufmann Department Stores, Inc., 334 Pa. 233, 235 , 5 A. 2d 559, 560 ; Dunmire v. Fitzgerald, 349 Pa. 511 , *596 516, 37 A. 2d 596, 599 ; Siidekum, Admr., v. Animal Rescue League of Pittsburgh, 353 Pa. 408, 413, 414 , 45 A. 2d 59, 6

1953The crucial test in determining whether a servant furnished by one person to another becomes the employe of the person to whom he is loaned is whether he passes under the latter’s right of control with regard not only to the work to be done but also to the manner of performing it: Venezia v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 317 Pa. 557, 559 , 177 A. 25, 26 ; Walters v. Kaufmann Department Stores, Inc., 334 Pa. 233, 235 , 5 A. 2d 559, 580 ; Dunmire v. Fitzgerald, 349 Pa. 511, 516 , 37 A. 2d 596, 599 ; Siidekum, Admr., v. Animal Rescue League of Pittsburgh, 353 Pa. 408, 413, 414 , 15 A. 2d 59, 61 ; Di

2025Id. (emphasis added, citation omitted); see also Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050 , 1059 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (same).

2025Past abusive conduct on the appellant’s part was a crucial inquiry necessary for entry of a proper order. -7- J-A24009-25 Id. (emphasis added, citation omitted); see also Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050 , 1059 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (same).

1985The crucial test in determining the presence of probable cause is whether ‘the facts and circumstances known to the police or about which they have reasonably trustworthy information at the time of the arrest ... would warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing the suspect has committed or is committing a crime.’ Commonwealth v. Bartlett, 486 Pa. 396, 400 , 406 A.2d 340, 341 (1979); Commonwealth v. Stokes, 480 Pa. 38 , 389 A.2d 74 (1978); Commonwealth v. Pytak, 278 Pa.Superior Ct. 476, 420 A.2d 640 (1980).

1985The crucial test in determining the presence of probable cause is whether ‘the facts and circumstances known to the police or about which they have reasonably trustworthy information at the time of the arrest ... would warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing the suspect has committed or is committing a crime.’ Commonwealth v. Bartlett, 486 Pa. 396, 400 , 406 A.2d 340, 341 (1979); Commonwealth v. Stokes, 480 Pa. 38 , 389 A.2d 74 (1978); Commonwealth v. Pytak, 278 Pa.Superior Ct. 476, 420 A.2d 640 (1980).

2019"The crucial test in determining the presence of probable cause is whether the facts and circumstances known to the police or about which they have reasonably trustworthy information at the time of the arrest would warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing the suspect has committed or is committing a crime." Id.

1985Commonwealth v. Rutigliano, 310 Pa.Super. 364, 369 , 456 A.2d 654, 657 (1983).

1976Probable cause for an arrest is defined *326 in Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 423 , 322 A.2d 119 (1974): "The crucial test is whether there were facts available at the time of the initial apprehension which would justify a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a crime had been committed and that the individual arrested was the probable perpetrator." At page 428, 322 A.2d at page 123 .

1976Probable cause for an arrest is defined *326 in Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 423 , 322 A.2d 119 (1974): "The crucial test is whether there were facts available at the time of the initial apprehension which would justify a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a crime had been committed and that the individual arrested was the probable perpetrator." At page 428, 322 A.2d at page 123 .

2014The crucial test is whether there were facts available which would justify a person of reasonable caution in the belief that a crime had been committed and that the individual arrested was the probable perpetrator.” Commonwealth v. Wilder, 461 Pa. 597 , 337 A.2d 564, 566 (1975).

2014The crucial test is whether there were facts available which would justify a person of reasonable caution in the belief that a crime had been committed and that the individual arrested was the probable perpetrator.” Commonwealth v. Wilder, 461 Pa. 597 , 337 A.2d 564, 566 (1975).

2008See [United States v.] Mendenhall, 446 U.S. [544,] 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497 [(1980)]; [Florida v.] Royer, 460 U.S. [491,] 502, 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 [ (1983) ].

2008See [United States v.] Mendenhall, 446 U.S. [544,] 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497 [(1980)]; [Florida v.] Royer, 460 U.S. [491,] 502, 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 [ (1983) ].

1993While numerous factors are considered in determining the existence of a master-servant relationship, “the crucial test, without doubt, is whether the alleged employer assumes the right of control with regard not only to the work to be done by the alleged employe, but also to the manner of performing it.” Heilner v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Aetna Freight Lines), 38 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 494, 496, 393 A.2d 1085, 1086 (1978).

1982Heilner v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 494 , 393 A.2d 1085 (1978).