developed analysis in Pennsylvania

2020See, e.g., Accutane, 191 A.3d at 583-95 (reflecting the Supreme Court of New Jersey’s recent refinement of the state’s standard governing the admissibility of novel expert opinions, upon close consideration of the available options).

2020See, e.g., Accutane, 191 A.3d at 583-95 (reflecting the Supreme Court of New Jersey’s recent refinement of the state’s standard governing the admissibility of novel expert opinions, upon close consideration of the available options).

2025Villani v. Seibert, . . . 159 A.3d 478, 492 ([Pa.] 2016) (“[T]his [Supreme] Court frequently acknowledges the Legislature’s superior resources and institutional prerogative in making social policy judgments upon a developed analysis.”); Weaver v. Harpster, . . . 975 A.2d 555, 563 ([Pa.] 2009) (“[I]t is for the legislature to formulate the public policies of the Commonwealth.”).

2024See Villani v. Seibert, 159 A.3d 478, 492 (Pa. 2016) (acknowledging the General Assembly’s “superior resources and institutional prerogative in making social policy judgments upon a developed analysis”). [J-10A-2024 and J-10B-2024] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 3 Second, I am skeptical to the extent the majority suggests the standard for evaluating the constitutional validity of a taking is substantively stricter today than it was then.

2025Villani v. Seibert, . . . 159 A.3d 478, 492 ([Pa.] 2016) (“[T]his [Supreme] Court frequently acknowledges the Legislature’s superior resources and institutional prerogative in making social policy judgments upon a developed analysis.”); Weaver v. Harpster, . . . 975 A.2d 555, 563 ([Pa.] 2009) (“[I]t is for the legislature to formulate the public policies of the Commonwealth.”).

2024Appellant’s stipulation is legally incorrect, and as our High Court stated in Commonwealth v. Padilla, 80 A.3d 1238, 1272 (Pa. 2013), “a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be employed as an alternative route to obtain review of trial court or counsel error.” -8- J-A11003-24 to meet his burden due to the stipulation and concomitant failure to develop any claim on appeal addressing the effect of said stipulation.

2021See Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2016) (Saylor, C.J. concurring).

2020In re Nomination Petition of Pippy, 711 A.2d 1048, 1055 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998), which I would submit should be carefully reviewed by this Court on a proper and developed challenge.

2019Preliminarily, we observe that, since Ms. Evans’s in-court testimony was founded on the same out-of-court statements she compiled in Exhibit 79, her admittedly duplicative testimony is insufficient to cure the orphans’ court’s error in admitting the inadmissible hearsay.2 See In re A.J.R.-H., at 1172-73; citing Jones, supra (caseworker could not testify to substance of inadmissible documentary evidence); and In re Sanders Children, 312 A.2d 414, 416 (Pa. 1973) (“The witness’[s] first- hand knowledge of some of the facts contained in the report cannot justify the _______________________________

2017In all other respects, we reverse the final determination and remand for further consideration of the evidence of record.9 ______________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Judge Cosgrove did not participate in the decision in this case. 9 We decline to exercise our authority to independently review the record because “allowing OOR to make an initial decision [on the record] allows for a more developed analysis of the important issues.” Bagwell v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, 76 A.3d 81, 91 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

2017See generally Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 618 Pa. 632 , 652–54 & n.19, 57 A.3d 1232 , 1245–46 & n.19 (2012).

2017See generally Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 618 Pa. 632 , 652–54 & n.19, 57 A.3d 1232 , 1245–46 & n.19 (2012).

2014The Superior Court criticized Appellants for limiting their initial request to Mr. Barrick's medical records and for using a subpoena to obtain discovery from an expert in "complete disregard of the plain language of Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5,” Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hosp., 32 A.3d 800, 806-07 (Pa.Super.2011), inasmuch as discovery from an expert is generally obtained via interrogatories to opposing counsel.

2014In Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 139 F.R.D. 384, 397 (N.D.Cal.1991), the court reached the same result after a developed analysis, positing that the outcome would be salutary in curtailing the practice of lawyers unduly influencing expert opinions. .