three part test in Pennsylvania

2017Commonwealth v. Perry, 959 A.2d 932, 936 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations and quotation marks omitted). ____________________________________________ 5 This three part test was enunciated in Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987). -6- J-S59045-17 “In determining whether counsel’s action was reasonable, we do not question whether there were other more logical courses of action which counsel could have pursued; rather, we must examine whether counsel’s decisions had any reasonable basis.” Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586, 594 (Pa. 2007).

1996In order to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must satisfy the three part test articulated in Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (1987).

1992Previously, the analysis had been performed by applying the three part test first announced in Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Cleveland Lumber Co., 228 Pa.Super. 12, 19 , 323 A.2d 11, 15 (1974).

1992Previously, the analysis had been performed by applying the three part test first announced in Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Cleveland Lumber Co., 228 Pa.Super. 12, 19 , 323 A.2d 11, 15 (1974).

1993This rule further evolved in Commonwealth v. Williams, 455 Pa. 569, 319 A.2d 419 (1974), which set out a three part test: 1) the delay must be unnecessary; 2) evidence that is prejudicial must be obtained; and 3) the incriminating evidence must be reasonably related to the delay.

1993This rule further evolved in Commonwealth v. Williams, 455 Pa. 569, 319 A.2d 419 (1974), which set out a three part test: 1) the delay must be unnecessary; 2) evidence that is prejudicial must be obtained; and 3) the incriminating evidence must be reasonably related to the delay.

2016In Jacobs, our Supreme Court re-affirmed the non pros standard developed in James Brothers Lumber Company v. Union Banking and Trust Company of DuBois, 247 A.2d 587 (Pa. 1968): The effect of our decision today is to return to the three part test of James Brothers.

1998We began our analysis in Penn Piping by restating the three part test set forth in James Brothers Co. v. Union Banking and Trust Co. of DuBois, 432 Pa. 129, 132 , 247 A.2d 587, 589 (1968).

1996“Where the proffer is sufficiently specific, the court must then undertake a three part analysis of the substance of the proffer.” Wall, 413 Pa.Super. at 615 , 606 A.2d at 457 .

1996“Where the proffer is sufficiently specific, the court must then undertake a three part analysis of the substance of the proffer.” Wall, 413 Pa.Super. at 615 , 606 A.2d at 457 .

2015The PCRA creates a three- part test for the after-discovered facts exception: “1) the discovery of an unknown fact; 2) the fact could not have been learned by the exercise of due diligence; and 3) the petition for relief was filed within 60 days of the date that the claim could have been presented.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 35 A.3d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 53 A.3d 757 (Pa. 2012) (emphasis omitted).

2014See Commonwealth v. Smith, 35 A.3d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 53 A.3d 757 (Pa. 2012).

2021Thomas, supra (citing Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491, 497 (Pa. 1988)).

2014In Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1988), our Supreme Court established a three part test for determining whether joinder or severance of criminal defendants is proper.

1987In Isaacson v. Mobil Propane Corporation, 315 Pa.Superior Ct. 42, 461 A.2d 625 (1983), this Court summarized a three part test to determine if a medical report was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule: A medical report is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the report: (1) was made contemporaneously with the events it purports to relate, (2) at the time the report was prepared, it was impossible to anticipate reasons which might arise in the future for making a false entry in the original and (3) the person responsible for the s

1987Superior Court, citing Isaacson v. Mobil Propane Corporation, 315 Pa.Superior Ct. 42, 461 A.2d 625 (1983), applied a three part test and concluded that the social worker’s report was admissible.

1985In Commonwealth v. Proctor, 253 Pa.Super. 369 , 385 A.2d 383 (1978), our court *345 discussed whether a foundation must first be established before a party can use the rule permitting a witness to refresh recollection, and we adopted the following three part test: To permit the use of a writing in order to refresh the memory of a witness, the proponent must show: (1) that the witness’ present memory is inadequate; (2) that the writing could refresh the witness’ present memory; and (3) that reference to the writing actually does refresh the witness’ present memory.

1985In Commonwealth v. Proctor, 253 Pa.Super. 369 , 385 A.2d 383 (1978), our court *345 discussed whether a foundation must first be established before a party can use the rule permitting a witness to refresh recollection, and we adopted the following three part test: To permit the use of a writing in order to refresh the memory of a witness, the proponent must show: (1) that the witness’ present memory is inadequate; (2) that the writing could refresh the witness’ present memory; and (3) that reference to the writing actually does refresh the witness’ present memory.

2024Carey v. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

2023Unlike the present matter, Luongo sets forth the burden of proof for establishing undue influence in the context of a will contest.12 Whereas in decisions concerning whether a party was unduly influenced into entering a contract outside the context of a will contest, the courts have generally not applied this standard and instead have focused only on the issue of whether a confidential relationship existed. 13 See ____________________________________________ 12 In considering whether the appellant set forth a prima facie case for undue influence in an action contesting the validity of his fath

2023Unlike the present matter, Luongo sets forth the burden of proof for establishing undue influence in the context of a will contest.12 Whereas in decisions concerning whether a party was unduly influenced into entering a contract outside the context of a will contest, the courts have generally not applied this standard and instead have focused only on the issue of whether a confidential relationship existed. 13 See ____________________________________________ 12 In considering whether the appellant set forth a prima facie case for undue influence in an action contesting the validity of his fath

2023Evaluating Rules 582 and 583 together, our courts have devised a three- part test: “(1) whether the evidence of each of the offenses would be admissible in a separate trial for the other; (2) whether such evidence is capable of separation by the jury so as to avoid danger of confusion; and, if the answers to these inquiries are in the affirmative, (3) whether the defendant will be unduly prejudiced by the consolidation of offenses.” Hobel, supra at 1067 (cleaned up).

2021In analyzing their argument, our Supreme Court expressly adopted the three- part test announced by the United States Supreme Court in Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411 (1983), for determining when a state law may impair a contractual right.

2021In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (S. Ct. 1986), the Supreme Court of the United States held that aprosecutor's challenge to potential jurors solely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution." Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470, 484 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). 341Page Under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (S. Ct. 1986), the prosecutor's proffered explanation must consist of "`legitimate reasons' for exercising the challenges." Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 20.

2020“A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship.” In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004). -9- J-S30024-20 In determining whether a parent has demonstrated a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or failed to perform parental duties, the trial court must engage in a three part inquiry: “(1) the parent’s explanation for his or her conduct; (2) the post-abandonment contact between parent and child; and (3

2019Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 541 Pa. 108, 118 , 661 A.2d 352, 356-357 (1995), U.S. cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 931 (1996) (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Allen, 883 A.2d 800 , 802 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2019Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 541 Pa. 108, 118 , 661 A.2d 352, 356-357 (1995), U.S. cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 931 (1996) (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Allen, 883 A.2d 800 , 802 (Pa. Super. 2003).