consideration factors in Pennsylvania

2026While a court’s consideration of these factors is mandatory, “it is within the trial court’s purview as the finder of fact to determine which factors are most salient and critical in each particular case.” E.B. v. D.B., 209 A.3d 451, 460 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

2026While a court’s consideration of these factors is mandatory, “it is within the trial court’s purview as the finder of fact to determine which factors are most salient and critical in each particular case.” E.B. v. D.B., 209 A.3d 451, 460 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

2024In order to evidence its consideration of these elements, custody courts must set forth a discussion of these best-interest factors “prior to the deadline by which a litigant must file a notice of appeal.” A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 820 (Pa.Super. 2014).

2023In order to evidence its consideration of these required elements, trial courts must set forth a discussion of these best-interest factors “prior to the deadline by which a litigant must file a notice of appeal.” A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818, 820 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2022Section 1726(a)(1) of the Judicial Code declares: “Attorney[]s[’] fees are not an item of taxable costs except to the extent authorized by [S]ection 2503 [of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503] (relating to right of participants to receive counsel fees).” 42 Pa.C.S. § 1726(a)(1); see also Twp. of Marple, 613 A.2d at 95 (“[A]ny claim for counsel fees by a successful plaintiff in a mandamus action should be awarded only after a consideration of the factors set forth in [S]ection 2503 [of the Judicial Code].”).

2017Relative to mandamus, Section 8303 of the Judicial Code provides: “A person who is adjudged in an action in the nature of mandamus to have failed or refused without lawful justification to perform a duty required by law shall be liable in damages to the person aggrieved by such failure or refusal.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303. “[A]ny claim for counsel fees by a successful plaintiff in a mandamus action should be awarded only after a consideration of the factors set forth in [Sjection 2503 [of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503].” Twp. of Marple v. Weidman, 149 Pa.Cmwlth. 286 , 613 A.2d 94, 95 (1992).

1990“However, the presumption created by the additional consideration rule could itself be rebutted by evidence that the parties specifically contracted for employment at-will.” Darlington v. General Electric, 350 Pa.Super. 183, 200 , 504 A.2d 306, 314 (1986).

1990“However, the presumption created by the additional consideration rule could itself be rebutted by evidence that the parties specifically contracted for employment at-will.” Darlington v. General Electric, 350 Pa.Super. 183, 200 , 504 A.2d 306, 314 (1986).

2026See Balla, 112 A.2d at 159 (court properly refused to consolidate actions for trial against city and railroads arising out of motor vehicle accident, where “jury might have been influenced by sympathy for the decedent to the prejudice of the defendants”); see also Skender, 2023 WL 8598273 , *6 (citing Azinger, 105 A. at 88 (“The question is one that must ____________________________________________ 4 While decisions of common pleas courts are not binding precedent, we may consider them for their persuasive authority.

2026See Balla, 112 A.2d at 159 (court properly refused to consolidate actions for trial against city and railroads arising out of motor vehicle accident, where “jury might have been influenced by sympathy for the decedent to the prejudice of the defendants”); see also Skender, 2023 WL 8598273 , *6 (citing Azinger, 105 A. at 88 (“The question is one that must necessarily be left to the discretion of the trial judge, and where the issues are the same and they arise out of the same transaction, and it does not ____________________________________________ 4 While decisions of common pleas courts are n

2026The court, however, “should avoid dissociating the issue of primary custody from the issue of relocation, and should instead decide the two issues together under a single umbrella of best interests of the children.” S.S., 189 A.3d at 1098 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025The court, however, “should avoid dissociating the issue of primary custody from the issue of relocation, and should instead decide the two issues together under a single umbrella of best interests of the children.” S.S., 189 A.3d at 1098 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026See Balla, 112 A.2d at 159 (court properly refused to consolidate actions for trial against city and railroads arising out of motor vehicle accident, where “jury might have been influenced by sympathy for the decedent to the prejudice of the defendants”); see also Skender, 2023 WL 8598273 , *6 (citing Azinger, 105 A. at 88 (“The question is one that must ____________________________________________ 4 While decisions of common pleas courts are not binding precedent, we may consider them for their persuasive authority.

2026See Balla, 112 A.2d at 159 (court properly refused to consolidate actions for trial against city and railroads arising out of motor vehicle accident, where “jury might have been influenced by sympathy for the decedent to the prejudice of the defendants”); see also Skender, 2023 WL 8598273 , *6 (citing Azinger, 105 A. at 88 (“The question is one that must necessarily be left to the discretion of the trial judge, and where the issues are the same and they arise out of the same transaction, and it does not ____________________________________________ 4 While decisions of common pleas courts are n

2024Appellate review of the adequacy of a resentencing court’s consideration of factors attendant to the defendant’s youth, such as age, culpability, immaturity, childhood trauma, and whether the defendant is permanently incorrigible, involves the review of the discretionary aspects of sentence.[fn2] Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 266 A.3d 49, 54 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc). [fn2] We note that when sentencing juveniles convicted of first- or second-degree murder after June 24, 2012, the court is required to consider several specifically enumerated sentencing factors, including seven “age-related charact

2022Appellate review of the adequacy of a resentencing court’s consideration of factors attendant to the defendant’s youth, such as age, culpability, immaturity, childhood trauma, and whether the defendant is permanently incorrigible, involves the review of the discretionary aspects of -3- sentence.2 Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 266 A.3d 49 , 54 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc).

2023Furthermore, trial courts are required to consider “[a]ll of the factors listed in section 5328(a) . . . when entering a custody order.” J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis in original).

2023Furthermore, trial courts are required to consider “[a]ll of the factors listed in section 5328(a) . . . when entering a custody order.” J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647, 652 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis and citation omitted).

2017Relative to mandamus, Section 8303 of the Judicial Code provides: “A person who is adjudged in an action in the nature of mandamus to have failed or refused without lawful justification to perform a duty required by law shall be liable in damages to the person aggrieved by such failure or refusal.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303. “[A]ny claim for counsel fees by a successful plaintiff in a mandamus action should be awarded only after a consideration of the factors set forth in [Sjection 2503 [of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503].” Twp. of Marple v. Weidman, 149 Pa.Cmwlth. 286 , 613 A.2d 94, 95 (1992).

2017Relative to mandamus, Section 8303 of the Judicial Code provides: “A person who is adjudged in an action in the nature of mandamus to have failed or refused without lawful justification to perform a duty required by law shall be liable in damages to the person aggrieved by such failure or refusal.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303. “[A]ny claim for counsel fees by a successful plaintiff in a mandamus action should be awarded only after a consideration of the factors set forth in [S]ection 2503 [of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503].” Twp. of Marple v. Weidman, 149 Pa.Cmwlth. 286 , 613 A.2d 94, 95 (1992).

2026See In re Adoption of A.C.B., 334 A.3d 351 (Pa. Super. 2024) (unpublished memorandum at *7); see also In re -5- Adoption of J.G.B., 334 A.3d 354 (Pa. Super. 2024) (unpublished memorandum at *6).2 “In the absence of a Rule 1925(a) opinion or, at a minimum, a statement from the trial judge explaining [its] individualized and considered reasons for terminating Mother’s parental rights, this Court is unable to conduct meaningful appellate review.” See K.O.C., 325 A.3d at 858.

2025The consideration of that claim has no bearing on our review as “it is a well-settled doctrine in this Court that a trial court can be affirmed on any valid basis appearing of record.” In re T.P., 78 A.3d 1166, 1170 (Pa. Super. 2013). 11/4/2025 - 11 -

2024Since [the defendant] committed first-degree murder before June 24, 2012, the court considers these factors as “guidance” which is “non-binding[.]” Felder, [269 A.3d at 1245] n.15.

2023In conducting the analysis, a court must consider “the nature of the claim and the relief sought.” Id. at 376 .

2023The consideration of these factors can be “rephrased as a balancing of the interests of the 74 Rule 1032(b) states, in relevant part, that “[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise . . . that there has been a failure to join an indispensable party, the court shall order that . . . the indispensable party be joined, but if that is not possible, then it shall dismiss the action.” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1032(b). 606 plaintiff, the defendant, the absent party, and the efficient administration of justice.” CRY, Inc. v. Mill Serv., Inc., 640 A.2d 372, 377 (Pa. 1994).

2022See Commonwealth v. Woosnam, 819 A.2d 1198 , 1206-07 (Pa. Super. 2003) (granting a new trial due to trial court error in effectively making leaving the scene of an accident involving death or personal injury “a strict liability crime[,]” where the court erroneously “refused to instruct the jury that the Commonwealth had any burden of proving any amount of knowledge on Appellant’s part that she was involved in an accident involving death or injury[,]” which “removed from the jury’s consideration the only defense presented by [the a]ppellant and virtually instructed the jury to find in favor of

2022See Commonwealth v. Woosnam, 819 A.2d 1198 , 1206-07 (Pa. Super. 2003) (granting a new trial due to trial court error in effectively making leaving the scene of an accident involving death or personal injury “a strict liability crime[,]” where the court erroneously “refused to instruct the jury that the Commonwealth had any burden of proving any amount of knowledge on Appellant’s part that she was involved in an accident involving death or injury[,]” which “removed from the jury’s consideration the only defense presented by [the a]ppellant and virtually instructed the jury to find in favor of

2021See Gates, 462 U.S. at 243 n.13 (providing that “[i]n making a determination of probable cause the relevant inquiry is not whether the particular conduct is ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty,’ but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of non-criminal acts”).

2020See DiClaudio, supra. With respect to Appellant’s prior conviction and victim impact evidence, the record shows these factors were not raised at Appellant’s revocation hearing; rather, they were raised by Farrell’s counsel at the joint re-sentencing hearing and Appellant’s objection to the court’s consideration of these factors was in the context of his motion to sever the proceedings.

2017See State v. Modlin, 867 N.W.2d 609 , 621 (Neb. 2015) (“[W]hen the State claims the blood draw was proper pursuant to the consent exception to the warrant requirement, actual voluntary consent is to be determined by reference to the totality of the circumstances, one of which is the implied consent statute.”).

2017See State v. Modlin, 291 Neb. 660 , 867 N.W.2d 609 , 621 (2015) (“[W]hen the State claims the blood draw was proper pursuant to the consent exception to the warrant requirement, actual voluntary consent is to .be determined by reference to the totality of the circumstances, one of which is the implied consent statute,”).

2017See In re I.J., supra. Accordingly, we affirm the Orphans’ Court decision under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a) but remand for the court’s consideration and analysis under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) and further proceedings, if necessary.

2017See Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280, 1283 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2017Commonwealth v. Schutzues, 54 A.3d 86, 93 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 67 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2013).18 Ultimately, “The focus of a probation violation hearing, even though prompted by a subsequent arrest, is whether the conduct of the probationer indicates that the probation has proven to be an effective vehicle to accomplish rehabilitation and a sufficient deterrent against future antisocial conduct.” Commonwealth v. Carver, 923 A.2d 495, 498 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

2017Commonwealth v. Schutzues, 54 A.3d 86, 93 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 67 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2013).18 Ultimately, “The focus of a probation violation hearing, even though prompted by a subsequent arrest, is whether the conduct of the probationer indicates that the probation has proven to be an effective vehicle to accomplish rehabilitation and a sufficient deterrent against future antisocial conduct.” Commonwealth v. Carver, 923 A.2d 495, 498 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).