essentially claim in Pennsylvania

2019“This Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444, 455 (Pa. Super. 2007); see also Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 297 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted) (holding that “a claim that the court failed to consider certain mitigating factors does not present a substantial question” for our review); Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (holding the appellant did not raise a substantial question where he alleged the trial court failed to co

2019“This Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444, 455 (Pa. Super. 2007); see also Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 297 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted) (holding that “a claim that the court failed to consider certain mitigating factors does not present a substantial question” for our review); Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (holding the appellant did not raise a substantial question where he alleged the trial court failed to co

2019“This Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444, 455 (Pa. Super. 2007); see also Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 297 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted) (holding that “a claim that the court failed to consider certain mitigating factors does not present a substantial question” for our review); Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (holding the appellant did not raise a substantial question where he alleged the trial court failed to co

2017See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710, 713-14 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a review of the sufficiency of the evidence does not include an assessment of the credibility of testimony; such a claim goes to the weight of the evidence).

2007This is essentially a claim that the trial court failed to properly consider mitigating factors when fashioning Matroni’s sentence. “[T]his Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Bullock, 868 A.2d 516, 529 (Pa.Super.2005) (citing Commonwealth v. Wellor, 731 A.2d 152 (Pa.Super.1999); Commonwealth v. Bershad, 693 A.2d 1303 (Pa.Super.1997); Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 439 Pa.Super. 227 , 653 A.2d 706 (1995), appeal denied, 541 Pa. 625 , 661 A.2d 873 (Pa.1995)). ¶ 32 Mat

2007This is essentially a claim that the trial court failed to properly consider mitigating factors when fashioning Matroni's sentence. "[T]his Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review." Commonwealth v. Bullock, 868 A.2d 516, 529 (Pa.Super.2005) (citing Commonwealth v. Wellor, 731 A.2d 152 (Pa.Super.1999); Commonwealth v. Bershad, 693 A.2d 1303 (Pa.Super.1997); Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 439 Pa.Super. 227 , 653 A.2d 706 (1995), appeal denied, 541 Pa. 625 , 661 A.2d 873 (Pa.1995)). ¶ 32 Mat

1987Thus, even if the defendant has undertaken to render a service to another, and the plaintiff (third person) has suffered physical harm, if there was no reason that the defendant should have foreseen that his actions were necessary for the protection of the plaintiff, no cause of action will lie under § 324A. 506 Pa. at 41 , 483 A.2d at 1353-54 (citation omitted).

1987Thus, even if the defendant has undertaken to render a service to another, and the plaintiff (third person) has suffered physical harm, if there was no reason that the defendant should have foreseen that his actions were necessary for the protection of the plaintiff, no cause of action will lie under § 324A. 506 Pa. at 41 , 483 A.2d at 1353-54 (citation omitted).

1984See, e.g., Kane v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 98 Cal.App.3d 350 , 159 Cal.Rptr. 446 (1979) (“The section is predicated upon, and in no way alters, the traditional requirement of a foreseeable harm to a foreseeable class of plaintiffs.”).

1984See, e.g., Kane v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 98 Cal.App.3d 350 , 159 Cal.Rptr. 446 (1979) (“The section is predicated upon, and in no way alters, the traditional requirement of a foreseeable harm to a foreseeable class of plaintiffs.”).

1953This is essentially the standard that is recognized by the courts in determining whether a utility is self-sustaining in other circumstances: Kelley v. Earle et al., 325 Pa. 337, 345 (1937); Williams v. Samuel et al., 332 Pa. 265, 271 (1938); Greenhalgh v. Woolworth et al., 361 Pa. 543, 552 (1949).

1953This is essentially the standard that is recognized by the courts in determining whether a utility is self-sustaining in other circumstances: Kelley v. Earle et al., 325 Pa. 337, 345 (1937); Williams v. Samuel et al., 332 Pa. 265, 271 (1938); Greenhalgh v. Woolworth et al., 361 Pa. 543, 552 (1949).

1953This is essentially the standard that is recognized by the courts in determining whether a utility is self-sustaining in other circumstances: Kelley v. Earle et al., 325 Pa. 337, 345 (1937); Williams v. Samuel et al., 332 Pa. 265, 271 (1938); Greenhalgh v. Woolworth et al., 361 Pa. 543, 552 (1949).