after hearing in Pennsylvania

2025We will disturb the trial court's order only upon an error of law or an abuse of discretion. ‘Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration.’ Chenot, 895 A.2d at 61 (citation omitted).

2024“Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration.” Chenot, 895 A.2d at 61 (citation omitted).

2022Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law based on the facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration. -7- J-S29003-21 Weible v. Allied Signal, Inc., 963 A.2d 521, 525 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation and brackets omitted).

2022Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law based on the facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration. -7- J-S29003-21 Weible v. Allied Signal, Inc., 963 A.2d 521 , 525 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation and brackets omitted).

2018Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason.” Miller v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 753 A.2d 829, 832 (Pa.Super.2000) (internal citations omitted).

2018Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason.” Miller v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 753 A.2d 829, 832 (Pa. Super. 2000) (internal citations omitted).

2008Gutteridge, 804 A.2d at 651 . (citations omitted) ¶ 6 To withstand a summary judgment motion in an asbestos case, a plaintiff must meet the following standard: In order for liability to attach in a products liability action, plaintiff must establish that the injuries were caused by a product of the particular manufacturer or supplier.

2008Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law based on the facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration. *526 Gutteridge, 804 A.2d at 651 . (citations omitted) ¶ 6 To withstand a summary judgment motion in an asbestos case, a plaintiff must meet the following standard: In order for liability to attach in a products liability action, plaintiff must establish that the injuries were caused by a product of the particular manufacturer or supplier.

2017Tuthill v. Tuthill, 763 A.2d 417, 419 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc), appeal denied, 775 A.2d 808 (Pa. 2001). “[J]udicial discretion” requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and due consideration.

2016“We do not usurp the trial court’s fact-finding function.” Id. (citation omitted). _______________________ (Footnote Continued) divorce decree was filed on June 21, 1994; and the court’s memorandum opinion and order were filed on December 22, 2014. -2- J-A12026-16 “[J]udicial discretion” requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and due consideration.

2009Cresswell v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co., 820 A.2d 172, 177 (Pa.Super.2003) (citation omitted and emphasis in original). *1177 ¶ 4 The Supreme Court found that Tragarz, supra provides the proper standard in which to evaluate the application of the frequency, regularity, and proximity factors in asbestos litigation.

2007Cresswell, 820 A.2d at 177 (quotation omitted) (emphasis in original). ¶ 17 West American first argues the trial court erred in failing to find the commercial insurance policy at issue excludes coverage for the type of claim made by Ms. Bombar.

2002Lachat v. Hinchliffe, 769 A.2d 481, 487 (Pa.Super.2001). ¶ 11 Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in making factual and credibility determinations in response to Hercules and Pecora’s motions for summary judgment.

2002Lachat v. Hinchliffe, 2001 PA Super 50 , 769 A.2d 481, 487 (Pa.Super.2001).

2006Estate of Day, 455 Pa. at 613 , 317 A.2d at 650 (citing 20 Pa.C.S. § 6102(a)). .

2006Estate of Day, 455 Pa. at 613 , 317 A.2d at 650 (citing 20 Pa.C.S. § 6102(a)). .

2018Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason. -4- J-S64019-18 Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015, 1019 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lettau, 955 A.2d 360, 363 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal citations and quotations omitted)).

2015Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason. -4- J-S19003-15 Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015, 1019 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2018See Bold, 939 A.2d at 894–895 (“Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration.

2008Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason.” Bold v. Bold, 207 Pa.Super. 365 , 939 A.2d 892, 895 (2007). ¶ 10 In this case, Lettau argues that the trial court’s refusal to grant a mistrial allowed impermissible comment on his “pre-arrest silence,” suggesting to the jury that refusal to cooperate fully in a police investigation and to deny the crimes at issue to the investigating officer could be considered as substantive evidence of guilt.

2005In Beers v. Beers, 342 Pa.Super. 465 , 493 A.2d 116, 117-118 (1985), this Court stated “[t]he polestar of any child custody [or visitation] dispute is to reach a decision which serves the ‘best interests’ of the child.

2005In Beers v. Beers, 342 Pa.Super. 465 , 493 A.2d 116, 117-118 (1985), this Court stated “[t]he polestar of any child custody [or visitation] dispute is to reach a decision which serves the ‘best interests’ of the child.

2000“Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration.” Id. (quoting In re Rose Hill Cemetery Ass’n, 527 Pa. 211 , 590 A.2d 1, 3 (1991)).

2000“Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration.” Id. (quoting In re Rose Hill Cemetery Ass’n, 527 Pa. 211 , 590 A.2d 1, 3 (1991)).

2024“Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration.” Eaddy v. Hamaty, 694 A.2d 639, 643 (Pa. Super. 1997).

2000“Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration.” Id. (quoting In re Rose Hill Cemetery Ass’n, 527 Pa. 211 , 590 A.2d 1, 3 (1991)).

2018Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason.” Id. (citation omitted).

2017Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason. -4- J-S05043-17 Commonwealth v. Jaynes, 135 A.3d 606, 615 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 145 A.3d 724 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).

2018See Neducsin, 121 A.3d at 509 . -9- J-A02019-18 conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration.

2017Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason.” Neducsin, 121 A.3d at 506 (quoting Miller v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 753 A.2d 829, 832 (Pa. Super. 2000) (internal citations omitted)).

2024Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason. -7- J-A02004-24 Jarl Investments, L.P. v. Fleck, 937 A.2d 1113, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted).

2020See Kruis, supra at 327 (providing party seeking relief from non pros entered following failure to appear must offer a reasonable excuse for the absence and a meritorious cause of action); Corrado v. Thomas Jefferson Univ.

2019The record demonstrates that trial counsel did make a pre-trial severance motion in this case, which the Court denied after hearing argument.' Moreover, defendant could not make a cognizable PCRA claim that the Court erred in denying his severance motion since that claim could have, but was not, raised on direct_ appeal. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b) ("an issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, [or] on appeal"); see Commonwealth v. Lambert, 797 A.2d 232, 240 (Pa. I Because the severance issue involved an ongoing homicide investigation, the Cour

2018Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason. -4- J-S64019-18 Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015, 1019 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lettau, 955 A.2d 360, 363 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal citations and quotations omitted)).