Case law

S. Abrams v. The Juvenile Justice Department

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 2015

Notwithstanding video evidence establishing that Son was not involved in the assault, but was only a witness, Son was prosecuted and subjected to “in[-]home probation, . . . unnecessary drug screenings[,] . . . and unnecessary … Additionally, Son suffers “emotional distress upon having to provide for himself and trying to gain academic status to qualify for college.” (Compl. at 2.)

Scheetz v. Borough of Lansdale

64 Pa. Commw. 24 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1982

We believe that the above language clearly indicates that council’s action could be characterized as “legislative” only if the expenditure involved borrowed *29 funds, i.e., funds other than current funds. … Section 8.07 establishes guidelines for the borough treasurer to determine whether surplus funds are available for withdrawal, with fixed estimated costs, debt service, reserves and capital replacement requirements receiving

Union City Area School District v. Union City Area Education Ass'n, PSEA/NEA

951 A.2d 416 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2008

The District avers that under the School Code, every school district is required to employ only qualified professional employees and maintain rigorous standards to facilitate student achievement; thus, the District properly … Westmoreland dissent, we must reverse the order of the Trial Court and reinstate the Arbitrator’s award, since it clearly flows from the collective bargaining agreement and satisfies the essence test.

C. Talbert v. G. Little

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2023

Little asserts (1) that Talbert has no protected interest in phone access; (2) there is no private cause of action for money damages under the state constitution; (3) sovereign immunity; and (4) qualified governmental immunity … Talbert also contends that Little has no sovereign immunity as an officer of the Commonwealth and has no qualified immunity. Id. at 7.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

765 A.2d 414 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2000

Robert Sadoff credible and persuasive in establishing the fact that Decedent suffered from depression related to his work injury. … Herder is not qualified to diagnose depression. Claimant presented the deposition testimony of Dr.

Estate of Merriam v. Philadelphia Historical Commission

777 A.2d 1212 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 29, 2001

Dream Garden meets four criteria enumerated in the historic preservation ordinance, section 14-2007, subsection 5 A, B, E and H to qualify as an historic object. … Pennsylvania case law clearly holds that where an appellant has not exhausted its administrative remedies an appeal to the courts is not proper ...

E.-T. Parker Koger v. PHFA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2026

To the extent Koger, Sr., interprets Koger I as definitively establishing ownership of the Property, we disagree. … Judicial immunity “is not only immunity from damages, but also ‘immunity from suit.’” Id. (citations omitted). Therefore, judicial immunity is also a defense to claims seeking declaratory relief. Id. at 82.

E. Sciulli & R. Sciulli - City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2025

caselaw has established that ice or snow is not a condition “of” the street within the meaning of the street exception. … Thus, to overcome the City’s immunity, the Sciullis had to establish that the City either owned or had a written contract with the Commonwealth to maintain and repair the section of West Moyamensing Avenue where Egidio Sciulli

Dare v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing

682 A.2d 413 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 1996

Clearly, such an interpretation of subsection (e) is not only contrary to its plain language but is also illogical in light of the legislative intent to empower the Department to promulgate qualifications necessary for the … We note that there is no reason to doubt that a single sighted person can qualify under the requirements of Section 83.3(d); no evidence was presented and no argument was made to the contrary. .

H. Honey v. Lycoming County Offices of Voter Services Appeal of: Al Schmidt, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2024

HAVA established the Standards Board and the Board of Advisors to advise the EAC. … Clearly, the scanners here fit within the ambit of Section 1101-A as “automatic tabulating equipment.”

McKeesport Hospital v. Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine

156 Pa. Commw. 480 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1993

Clearly, the Act vests the Board with the primary authority to accredit residency programs and otherwise enforce and give effect to the Act. … Accreditation by the ACGME merely is a tool which establishes critical facts leading to the Board’s recognition of whether the curricula and training offered by a particular medical training facility meet or do not meet its

Bucks County Housing Development Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board

85 Pa. Commw. 42 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 1984

of the court of common pleas to establish such periods. … Otherwise, a landowner with a deemed tentative approval could delay further development with impunity; a result clearly contrary to the general legislative intent behind the MPC.

The Borough of West Chester v. PASSHE and West Chester University of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2019

immunity from taxation. … Thus, the Borough has not “clearly and without a doubt failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” Yocum, 161 A.3d at 234.

Saturday Family LP v. Com. Techspec Inc. v. Com.

168 A.3d 400 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2017

established. … The Department clearly disagrees with the Court’s interpretation and characterization of those terms as dispute resolution provisions.

D.T. Bowen v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2024

Claimant testified that “[n]atural immunity they say is probably equally as effective in combatting COVID versus a vaccine[]” and that she “strongly believed” that getting the vaccine would compromise her immune system. … Claimant testified that she did not apply for an exemption because she felt that she did not qualify for an exemption. N.T. Hr’g, 4/29/22, at 12.

Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

763 A.2d 440 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2000

Also, Bell’s 1994 Plan in no way immunizes it from being governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its provisions which, consistent with Chapter 30, seek to promote competition. … Co., 280 Pa. 92 , 124 A. 325 (1924), and immunity status, Ligon v. Middletown Area School District, 136 Pa.Cmwlth. 566 , 584 A.2d 376, 380 (1990).

S. McGuire on behalf of C. Neidig v. City of Pittsburgh

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2021

Thus, the plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to pursue a state court action.7 Here, the City argues that exceptions to governmental immunity set forth in the Tort Claims Act are strictly construed and, … He hasn’t been qualified as an expert to testify, and I just object to the relevance of asking this witness all these hypotheticals.

Robin Corp., Aplnt. v. Bd. of Spvrs., Lpt

17 Pa. Commw. 386 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1975

. : I agree with much of what is said by the majority, and I concur in the result reached inasmuch as Appellant *398 has clearly failed to carry its burden of proving that the present zoning denies it any reasonable use of … Where, however, the property allegedly confiscated does not suffer from unique physical conditions or circumstances, or would not otherwise qualify for a variance under Section 912 due to the nature of the change in zoning

Reinhart v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing

954 A.2d 761 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2008

The evidence established, however, that [Licensee] provided two sufficient breath samples. … (Tanner), 654 A.2d 3, 5 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994) (citation omitted) (soverign immunity does not bar award of attorney’s fees against Penn-DOT). A frivolous appeal is one lacking any basis in law or fact. Id.

Altemose Co. v. Commonwealth, Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

60 Pa. Commw. 511 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1981

Claimant established by clear and convincing evidence that although she executed a final receipt, her physical impairment persisted and prevented her being gainfully employed. Patel; Ferguson v. … compensation cases define disability as loss of earning power, 3 Employer must prove a change in the extent of Claimant’s disability by demonstrating the *517 availability of remunerative employment for which Claimant is qualified