concluded requirement in Pennsylvania

2026The affidavits, by their very name, constituted “testimonial statements.” Id. at 310 .

2026The affidavits, by their very name, constituted “testimonial statements.” Id. at 310 .

2000The court concluded that the hearing officer had properly relied on J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 453 Pa.Super. 78 , 682 A.2d 1314 (1996) regarding the issue of Appellee’s standing. ¶ 15 Sometime in early September, the parties attempted to implement the trial court’s limited visitation schedule.

2000The court concluded that the hearing officer had properly relied on J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 453 Pa.Super. 78 , 682 A.2d 1314 (1996) regarding the issue of Appellee’s standing. ¶ 15 Sometime in early September, the parties attempted to implement the trial court’s limited visitation schedule.

2024Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663 , 669 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2014). -4- J-S26024-24 sentence . . . [because] Appellant has prior convictions for aggravated assault, aggravated harassment by a prisoner, and resisting arrest, which render him ineligible for [an] RRRI minimum sentence.” See Trial Court Opinion, 3/18/24, at 3-4; see also Appellant’s Brief at 1-12.

2015Tobin, 89 A.3d at 669 n.4.

2020Id. at 6 (relying on A.M.M. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 194 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. 2018)).

2020Id. at 6 (relying on A.M.M. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 194 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. 2018)).

2020Id. at 19 .

2020Id. at 19 .

2019However, in Anderson v. Talaber , 171 A.3d 355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), this Court concluded that a challenge to the Board's discretion to award credit for time spent in good standing on parole plus reference to the parolee's eligibility under Section 6138(a)(2.1) of the Parole Code "fairly encompasse[d] the argument addressed in Pittman ." Anderson , 171 A.3d at 361 .

2019However, in Anderson v. Talaber , 171 A.3d 355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), this Court concluded that a challenge to the Board's discretion to award credit for time spent in good standing on parole plus reference to the parolee's eligibility under Section 6138(a)(2.1) of the Parole Code "fairly encompasse[d] the argument addressed in Pittman ." Anderson , 171 A.3d at 361 .

2025The Court concluded that this rule “promotes the early payment to injured employees which is clearly contemplated by the Act while it preserves the legitimate expectation that an employer’s liability under the Act for work-related injuries not become a general disability insurance policy.” Id.

2025Id. (distinguishing Elkin).

2024In rejecting appellant’s argument, the Court concluded the claim failed “for the fundamental reason that Paddy agreed at trial to counsel’s decision not to call the witnesses in question.” Id. at 315 .

2024After considering these cases in Brendley, this Court concluded that a claim for medical monitoring may be compensable if the facts show that a claimant has been exposed to hazardous substances at a level sufficient to create a risk of future harm that can only be remedied by continued testing.8 926 A.2d at 1281 .

2023Id.

2023Upon review, this Court concluded that defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance for failing to object to such testimony, noting that “the Commonwealth’s elicitation of the [detective’s] testimony regarding this fact constituted fair response.” Id. at 336 .

2022Here, the trial court concluded this standard was met, and, therefore, dismissed the Complaint and denied the Application by simply reiterating the above language in its October 20, 2020 10 Tejada initially filed his appeal in the Superior Court, which transferred the appeal to this Court. 11 Our review of a trial court’s decision dismissing a matter pursuant to Civil Rule 240(j) is “limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, [and] whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” McGriff v. Vidovich, 699 A.2d 797 , 798 n.2 (Pa. C

2021Id. at 30-31 .

2021The court concluded that the rule set forth in Dickerson that a police officer may not go beyond a frisk unless immediately apparent illegal contraband is detected “does not apply until the officer concludes that the object at issue is not a weapon.” Id. at 524 .

2021The Court concluded that the rule established by Azzarello was overbroad, impracticable, and based on “unsupported assumptions and conclusory statements.” Id. at 380 .

2020Id.

2020In Walker, the appellant additionally argued that the trial court ordered restitution without making “a determination of criminal responsibility for the injuries sustained[,]” and this Court concluded that this claim “pose[d] a challenge to the legality of the sentence of restitution[.]” 666 A.2d at 308 (citing Reed, 543 A.2d 587 (order of restitution requiring a defendant to make restitution for a loss which, according to the record, he did not cause, is illegal)).

2020In Walker, the appellant additionally argued that the trial court ordered restitution without making “a determination of criminal responsibility for the injuries sustained[,]” and this Court concluded that this claim “pose[d] a challenge to the legality of the sentence of restitution[.]” 666 A.2d at 308 (citing Reed, 543 A.2d 587 (order of restitution requiring a defendant to make restitution for a loss which, according to the record, he did not cause, is illegal)).

2020Because the stipulation—“as read to the jury”—was sufficient to support its findings, this Court concluded that his challenge necessarily “must fail.” Id. (emphasis in original).

2020Relying upon Gault, the Court concluded that the privilege was available to juveniles in certification proceedings and held that the statute’s mandate that a juvenile “admit to the charged criminal conduct in order to overcome the presumption of adult certification . . . violate[d] the juvenile’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.” Id. at 457 .

2019Treiber , 121 A.3d at 464 ; see Goodmond , 190 A.3d at 1202 .

2019However, when the Board raised a similar waiver defense in Johnson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 206 A.3d 88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019), this Court held: In Anderson v. Talaber, 171 A.3d 355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), this Court concluded that a challenge to the Board’s discretion to award credit for time spent in good standing on parole plus reference to the parolee’s eligibility under Section 6138(a)(2.1) of the Parole Code ‘fairly encompasse[d] the argument addressed in Pittman.’ Anderson, 171 A.3d at 361 .