de novo review standard in Pennsylvania

2010This position derived from former Chief Justice Cappy's concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Gorby, 589 Pa. 364 , 909 A.2d 775 (2006), in which he elaborated that "this [in] no way alters the principle that `the trial court is in the best position to review claims related to trial counsel's error in the first instance as that is the court that observed firsthand counsel's allegedly deficient performance.'" Indeed, the former Chief Justice stressed that he "would continue to accept the factual findings and credibility determinations of the PCRA court that are supported by the record." Commonwe

2010This position derived from former Chief Justice Cappy's concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Gorby, 589 Pa. 364 , 909 A.2d 775 (2006), in which he elaborated that "this [in] no way alters the principle that `the trial court is in the best position to review claims related to trial counsel's error in the first instance as that is the court that observed firsthand counsel's allegedly deficient performance.'" Indeed, the former Chief Justice stressed that he "would continue to accept the factual findings and credibility determinations of the PCRA court that are supported by the record." Commonwe

2013This position derived from former Chief Justice Cappy’s concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Gorby, 589 Pa. 364 , 909 A.2d 775 (2006), in which he elaborated that “this [in] no way alters the principle that ‘the trial court is in the best position to review claims related to trial counsel’s error in the first instance as that is the court that observed firsthand counsel’s allegedly deficient performance.’ ” Indeed, the former Chief Justice stressed that he “would continue to accept the factual findings and credibility determinations of the PCRA court that are supported by the record.” Commonw

2013This position derived from former Chief Justice Cappy’s concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Gorby, 589 Pa. 364 , 909 A.2d 775 (2006), in which he elaborated that “this [in] no way alters the principle that ‘the trial court is in the best position to review claims related to trial counsel’s error in the first instance as that is the court that observed firsthand counsel’s allegedly deficient performance.’ ” Indeed, the former Chief Justice stressed that he “would continue to accept the factual findings and credibility determinations of the PCRA court that are supported by the record.” Commonw

2010Along these lines, as Mr. Justice Saylor has recently explained: In Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa. 583 , 920 A.2d 790 (2007), a majority of the Court adopted a de novo review standard for the mixed question of law and fact concerning whether capital counsel's performance fell beneath the constitutionally *897 [sic] floor.

2010Along these lines, as Mr. Justice Saylor has recently explained: In Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa. 583 , 920 A.2d 790 (2007), a majority of the Court adopted a de novo review standard for the mixed question of law and fact concerning whether capital counsel's performance fell beneath the constitutionally *897 [sic] floor.

2006See Robeson v. Schuylkill Navigation Co., 3 Grant 186, 189 (Pa.1855) (“When a party admits a letter or other document to be evidence, by using it as such, he cannot afterwards deny the authenticity when his opponent desires to use it.”), accord P.L.E.2d Evidence § 233, Foundation Required for Authentication (Bender & Co., 2002). ¶ 37 Inasmuch as we have concluded the Client Agreement was properly admitted into evidence, cross-appellants’ argument that the arbitration dispute was governed by the NASD rules is rendered moot. ¶ 38 Cross-appellants’ final challenge to the de novo review clause in

2006Id. at 27.

2006Trial Court Opinion, Wettick, J., 6/28/05, at 4, quoting GMS Group, LLC v. Benderson, 326 F.3d 75, 77-78 (2d Cir.2003). 8 ¶ 48 In determining whether a federal or state law standard of review is applicable to the question of whether a de novo review clause is enforceable, we must look to judicial application of the doctrine of preemption in the FAA context.

2006In re Estate of Blumenthal, 812 A.2d 1279, 1286 (Pa.Super.2002) (citation omitted). ¶ 28 After careful review of the newsletter cross-appellants argue modified the Client Agreement, we conclude the court below was correct in finding modification had not taken place by the time arbitration commenced such that the de novo review clause was eliminated from the parties’ agreement.