fundamental principle in Pennsylvania

2022In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 72 A.2d 1200 (Pa. 2005), citing In re D.J.S., 737 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 1999). -7- J-A22024-21 The fundamental test in termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2) was established in In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975), where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced that, under what is now Section 2511(a)(2), “the p[arty seeking] involuntary termination must prove (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child to be without esse

2020The fundamental test in termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2) -6- J-S25037-20 was long ago stated in In re Geiger, 459 Pa. 636 , 331 A.2d 172 (1975), where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced that under what is now Section 2511(a)(2), “the petitioner for involuntary termination must prove (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not b

2025“The Orphans' Court decision will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles of law.” In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942, 951 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 577 Pa. 722 , 847 A.2d 1287 (2003).

2025An “[o]rphans’ court decision will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles of law.” In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 206-07 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942, 951 (Pa. Super. 2003)).

2025The decision of the orphans' court “will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles of law.” In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 206 (Pa. Super. 2012).

2025An “[o]rphans’ court decision will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles of law.” In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 206-07 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942, 951 (Pa. Super. 2003)).

2025Therefore, the fundamental inquiry of a reviewing court must be an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of intrusion warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. - 11 - J-S05038-25 Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 116 (Pa.Super. 2005) (internal citations omitted). “[T]he question of whether reasonable suspicion existed at the time of an investigatory detention must be answered by examining the totality of the circumstances to determine whether there was a particularized and objective basis for suspe

2019Therefore, the fundamental inquiry of a reviewing court must be an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of intrusion warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. -5- J-S29006-19 Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 116 (Pa. Super. 2005) [(citation omitted)].

2017The fundamental test in termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2) was long ago stated in the case of In re Geiger, 459 Pa. 636 , 331 A.2d 172 (1975), where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced that under what is now Section 2511(a)(2), “the petitioner for involuntary termination must prove (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be re

2017The fundamental test in termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2) was long ago stated in the case of In re Geiger, 459 Pa. 636 , 331 A.2d 172 (1975), where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced that under what is now Section 2511(a)(2), “the petitioner for involuntary termination must prove (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be re

2023“The fundamental inquiry is an objective one, namely, whether ‘the facts available to the officer at the moment of the intrusion warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.’” Zhahir, 751 A.2d at 1156 (citing Terry, supra, 392 U.S. at 21–22).

2023“The fundamental inquiry is an objective one, namely, whether ‘the facts available to the officer at the moment of the intrusion warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.’” Zhahir, 751 A.2d at 1156 (citing Terry, supra, 392 U.S. at 21–22).

2023Accordingly, she has failed to demonstrate the court committed “an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles of law.” In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d at 1018 .

2021“The Orphans’ Court[’s] decision will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles of law.” In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942, 951 (Pa. Super. 2003)[.] In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d 1010, 1018 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). -9- J-A03032-21 Executor’s claims are all grounded in the terms contained in the Agreement.

2018The fundamental inquiry of a reviewing court must be an objective one, namely, “whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the stop warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.” Commonwealth v. Basinger, 982 A.2d 121, 125 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2010Therefore, the fundamental inquiry of a reviewing court must be an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the [stop] warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. *901 Commonwealth v. Basinger, 982 A.2d 121, 125 (Pa.Super.2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2022In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 72 A.2d 1200 (Pa. 2005), citing In re D.J.S., 737 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 1999). -7- J-A22024-21 The fundamental test in termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2) was established in In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975), where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced that, under what is now Section 2511(a)(2), “the p[arty seeking] involuntary termination must prove (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child to be without esse

2020The fundamental test in termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2) -6- J-S25037-20 was long ago stated in In re Geiger, 459 Pa. 636 , 331 A.2d 172 (1975), where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced that under what is now Section 2511(a)(2), “the petitioner for involuntary termination must prove (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not b

2025Compare [] Edmunds, [ 586 A.2d at 899 ]) (“[T]he exclusionary rule in Pennsylvania has consistently served to bolster the twin aims of Article I, Section 8; to-wit, the safeguarding of privacy and the fundamental requirement that warrants shall only be issued upon probable cause.”), with [] Leon, [ 468 U.S. at 916 ] (explaining that the federal exclusionary rule serves solely a deterrent purpose).

2025To be reasonable, these provisions serve to “safeguard . . . privacy and the fundamental requirement that [seizures and arrests occur only] upon probable cause.” Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887, 899 (Pa. 1991). ____________________________________________ 6 Although Kent frames this issue as a challenge to the denial of his post- sentence motion, he actually challenges the trial court’s underlying suppression ruling. -7- J-S20029-25 This Court has recognized that, [a] warrantless search or seizure is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, [Section] 8, subjec

2022See Beasley, supra. Accordingly, we must determine whether the police had reasonable suspicion supporting the investigative detention.4 “In determining whether police had reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigative detention, ‘the fundamental inquiry is an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to police at the moment of the intrusion warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.’” Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 256 A.3d 1242 , 1248 (Pa.Super. 2021) (en banc) (quotation omitted). [This Court has recognized] [r]easonable suspicion ex

2022Commonwealth v. Beasley, 761 A.2d 621, 624 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 565 Pa. 662 , 775 A.2d 801 (2001). -4- J-S13027-22 “In determining whether police had reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigative detention, ‘the fundamental inquiry is an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to police at the moment of the intrusion warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.’” Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 256 A.3d 1242 , 1248 (Pa.Super. 2021), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 268 A.3d 1071 (2021) (quoting Commonwealth v. Gray, 784 A.2d 137

2026“It is only when the charge as a whole is inadequate or not clear or has a tendency to mislead or confuse[,] rather than clarify a material issue[,] that error in a charge will be found to be a sufficient basis for the award of a new trial.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Chambers, 602 Pa. 224 , 980 A.2d 35, 49-50 (2009) (“[a] charge will be found adequate unless the issues are not made clear, the jury was misled by the instructions, or there was an omission from the charge amounting to a fundamental error”).

2026“It is only when the charge as a whole is inadequate or not clear or has a tendency to mislead or confuse[,] rather than clarify a material issue[,] that error in a charge will be found to be a sufficient basis for the award of a new trial.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Chambers, 602 Pa. 224 , 980 A.2d 35, 49-50 (2009) (“[a] charge will be found adequate unless the issues are not made clear, the jury was misled by the instructions, or there was an omission from the charge amounting to a fundamental error”).

2025See Gustine Uniontown Assocs., Ltd. v. Anthony Crane Rental, Inc., 892 A.2d 830, 835 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that the purpose of Rule 302(a) is “to provide th[e] [trial] court with the opportunity to consider the issue, rule upon it -5- J-A24017-24 correctly, and obviate the need for appeal”); see also Kimmel v. Somerset County Comm'rs, 333 A.2d 777, 779 (Pa. 1975) (holding that “[i]t is a fundamental principle of appellate review that [appellate courts] will not reverse a judgment or decree on a theory that was not presented to the trial court”).

2025See Gustine Uniontown Assocs., Ltd. v. Anthony Crane Rental, Inc., 892 A.2d 830, 835 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that the purpose of Rule 302(a) is “to provide th[e] [trial] court with the opportunity to consider the issue, rule upon it -5- J-A24017-24 correctly, and obviate the need for appeal”); see also Kimmel v. Somerset County Comm'rs, 333 A.2d 777, 779 (Pa. 1975) (holding that “[i]t is a fundamental principle of appellate review that [appellate courts] will not reverse a judgment or decree on a theory that was not presented to the trial court”).

2017In interpreting constitutional language, “the fundamental rule of construction which guides [this Court] is that the Constitution’s language controls and must be interpreted in its popular sense, as understood by the people when they voted on its adoption.” Ieropoli v. AC & S Corp., 577 Pa. 138 , 842 A.2d 919, 925 (2004).

2017In interpreting constitutional language, “the fundamental rule of construction which guides [this Court] is that the Constitution’s language controls and must be interpreted in its popular sense, as understood by the people when they voted on its adoption.” Ieropoli v. AC & S Corp., 577 Pa. 138 , 842 A.2d 919, 925 (2004).

2024Failure to timely object to a basic and fundamental error will result in waiver of that issue.”); - 16 - J-A06026-24 see also Nelson v Kresge, 1417 EDA 2021 at 19 (Pa. Super., filed February 23, 2022) (unpublished memorandum) (holding that the father due no relief where he failed to raise any prior objection as to timing and/or scheduling or make any requests for earlier dates during disposition of the petitions for modification and contempt) (citing Fillmore v. Hill, 665 A.2d 514, 515-516 (Pa. Super (1995) (“On appeal, the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not called to the t

2020See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing for waiver of issues not first raised in lower court); Fillmore v. Hill, 665 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 1995) (stating that the failure to timely object to a basic and fundamental error will result in the waiver of that issue); In re S.C.B., 990 A.2d 762, 767 (Pa. Super. 2010) (concluding that a mother’s failure to raise a timely objection to an error during a termination of parental rights hearing resulted in waiver of that issue on appeal).

2026“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Id. (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).

2026“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976).

2018“The fundamental rule in construing a contract is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties.” Lower - 12 - J-A02040-18 Frederick Twp. v. Clemmer, 543 A.2d 502, 510 (1988).

2010A fundamental rule in construing a contract “is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties.” Shovel Transfer and Storage, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 559 Pa. 56, 65 , 739 A.2d 133, 137 (1999), quoting Lower Frederick Township v. Clemmer, 518 Pa. 313, 329 , 543 A.2d 502, 510 (1988).

2024“The fundamental inquiry is an objective one, namely, whether the facts available ____________________________________________ 6 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). -6- J-A01006-24 to the officer at the moment of the intrusion warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.” Id.

2024“The fundamental inquiry is an objective one, namely, whether the facts available ____________________________________________ 6 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). -6- J-A01006-24 to the officer at the moment of the intrusion warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.” Id.

2025Therefore, the fundamental inquiry of a reviewing court must be an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of intrusion warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. - 11 - J-S05038-25 Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 116 (Pa.Super. 2005) (internal citations omitted). “[T]he question of whether reasonable suspicion existed at the time of an investigatory detention must be answered by examining the totality of the circumstances to determine whether there was a particularized and objective basis for suspe

2023Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 , 116 (Pa.Super. 2005) (internal citations omitted). “[T]he question of whether reasonable suspicion existed at the time of an investigatory detention must be answered by examining the totality of the circumstances to determine whether there was a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the individual stopped of criminal activity.” Commonwealth v. Cottman, 764 A.2d 595 , 598-99 (Pa.Super. 2000) (quoting Commonwealth v. Beasley, 761 A.2d 621 , 625-26 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 565 Pa. 662 , 775 A.2d 801 (2001)).

2025“The fundamental rule in interpreting the meaning of a contract is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the contracting parties.” Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Ghost, 777 A.2d 418, 429 (Pa. 2001).

2023“The fundamental rule in interpreting the meaning of a contract is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the contracting parties.” Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Ghost, 777 A.2d 418, 429 (Pa. 2001).

2021In that landmark case repudiating the doctrine of fundamental error, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania explained that raising issues in the trial court is an imperative for attorneys and prevents trial-court proceedings from “becoming merely a dress rehearsal.” Id. at 116 .

2021In that landmark case repudiating the doctrine of fundamental error, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania explained that raising issues in the trial court is an imperative for attorneys and prevents trial-court proceedings from “becoming merely a dress rehearsal.” Id. at 116 .

2025Relief may be proper if “the issues are not made clear, the jury was misled by the instructions, or there was an omission from the charge amounting to a fundamental error.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Chambers, 980 A.2d ____________________________________________ 11 The trial court established the procedure, or nomenclature, to be used when litigating the jury charges and verdict form.

2019A new trial is warranted only "if an erroneous jury instruction amounted to a fundamental error or the record is insufficient to determine whether the error affected the verdict." Id.

2020In re Estate of Harrison, 745 A.2d 676, 678 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 646 , 758 A.2d 1200 (2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “[T]he Orphans’ [C]ourt decision will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles of law.” In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942, 951 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 577 Pa. 722 , 847 A.2d 1287 (2003).

2019In re Estate of Harrison, 745 A.2d 676, 678-79 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 646 , 758 A.2d 1200 (2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “[T]he Orphans’ [C]ourt decision will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles of law.” In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942, 951 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 577 Pa. 722 , 847 A.2d 1287 (2003).

2008“It is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that a challenge to a statute may not be raised in the abstract but must find its basis in an injury to the party seeking to have the enactment declared unconstitutionally infirm.” Commonwealth v. Bell, 512 Pa. 334, 342 , 516 A.2d 1172, 1177 (1986).

2008“It is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that a challenge to a statute may not be raised in the abstract but must find its basis in an injury to the party seeking to have the enactment declared unconstitutionally infirm.” Commonwealth v. Bell, 512 Pa. 334, 342 , 516 A.2d 1172, 1177 (1986).

2025“A charge will be found adequate unless ‘the issues are not made clear to the jury or the jury was palpably misled by what the trial judge said or unless there is an omission - 29 - J-A23020-25 in the charge which amounts to a fundamental error.’” Id. at 1069-70 (citation omitted).

2019Generally, a charge will be found adequate "unless the issues are not made clear to the jury or the jury was palpably misled by what the trial judge said or unless there is an omission in the charge which amounts to a fundamental error." Id.

2024Therefore, the fundamental inquiry of a reviewing court must be an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the [stop] warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. -6- J-S32035-23 Commonwealth v. Green, 168 A.3d 180, 184 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

2023Commonwealth v. Green, 168 A.3d 180, 184 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).