Case law

J. Markham v. T.W. Wolf, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the Com of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2021

Moreover, a Commonwealth party shall “remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.” 1 Pa. C.S. §2310. … Thus, “the General Assembly has not waived immunity for equitable claims seeking affirmative action by way of injunctive relief” under the Sovereign Immunity Act. Bonsavage v.

Wilson v. Marrow

917 A.2d 357 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2007

Clearly, therefore, he fails to plead a basis for monetary recovery, and his sole objective is to litigate the loss of freedom occasioned by the revocation of his parole. … We also conclude Wilson’s assignment to a drug rehabilitation program instead of an anger management program does not, by itself, establish a cognizable retaliation claim.

General Electric Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

150 Pa. Commw. 119 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 1992

Accordingly, because the referee’s findings of fact indicate that the claimant was injured as the result of his work which *124 was principally localized in another state, we hold that his employment does not qualify him … Although the claimant has also argued that the employer waived this issue by failing to raise it specifically before the referee, we need not address that argument because Section 305.2 is clearly a means of establishing

Williams v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

741 A.2d 848 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1999

As the trial court stated, this evidence clearly established a violation of section 3361 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3361, relating to driving at a safe speed, and establishes Appellants’ negligence per se. … Subsequently, the trial court reduced the survival action verdict to $250,000.00, representing the limit of SEPTA'S liability under what is commonly called the Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8528(b).

Manor v. Department of Public Welfare

796 A.2d 1020 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2002

An agency’s interpretation of its own rules and regulations is entitled to great weight unless it is clearly erroneous or in conflict with its enabling legislation. Milewski v. … However, this discretion is not unlimited and is qualified by the requirement that a participating state fully comply with the federal statutes and regulations governing the Medicaid program. Id.

Brown v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections

58 A.3d 118 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2012

On appeal, Brown asserts that the aver-ments in his complaint established that he is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. … Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 913 A.2d 301, 306 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (“Brown is a well-qualified abusive litigator within the meaning of the PLRA.”); Brown v.

Beaver Dam Outdoors Club v. Hazleton City Authority

944 A.2d 97 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2008

Further, the Authority, citing a number of cases, acknowledges the well established three-factor governmental functions test. See County of Butler v. Local 585, Serv. … Noting the test’s origins in governmental immunity cases (municipality immune from liability on the basis it was performing a governmental rather than a proprietary function), the Authority argues there is little or no judicial

Swoyer v. Department of Transportation

156 Pa. Commw. 1 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1991

Whenever possible each question must be followed immediately by an answer stating simply whether it was affirmed, negatived, qualified or not answered by the court or government unit below. … MacSlmny and sections 1540 and 1541, 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1540-1541, clearly illustrate that credit towards a suspension does not begin until the Department receives the driver’s operating license or an acknowledgement thereof.

Danwell Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board

115 Pa. Commw. 174 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1988

Under these circumstances, Danwell failed to establish grounds for disqualification. 4. … Clearly, the characteristics of this use do not fall within the common meaning of the words distribution or processing.

Pittsburgh Stadium Concessions, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board

674 A.2d 334 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1996

Following an evidentiary hearing, 2 the Board issued an opinion and order refusing PSC’s application on the following grounds: (1) the proposed licensed premises are located within 200 feet of other establishments licensed … 789 (1993), this Court stated that “[t]he construction given a statute by those charged with its execution and application is entitled to great weight and should only be disregarded or overturned for cogent reasons and if clearly

S. Sigman v. DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2021

“Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer.” … Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210-11 (1998).10 Therefore, Sigman has prima facie established that he is a qualified individual with a disability.11 In addition, the Petition’s averments support the remaining two prongs of

Propel Charter Schools v. PA Dept. of Ed. (State Charter School Appeal Bd.)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2021

Section 1729.1-A of the CSL, which provides for the establishment of MCSOs (MCSO Provisions), states, in relevant part: (a) Establishment shall be as follows: (1) Subject to the requirements of … Such an interpretation of the CSL is clearly inconsistent with the aforementioned legislative intent. See Harmon.

City of Pittsburgh v. Board of Property Assessment

129 Pa. Commw. 69 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1989

Such a requirement clearly conflicts with the evident intent of the proviso [to Section 204(a)(3) ] to accommodate evolving institutional needs in the light of limits to public and private generosity. … However, any entity seeking tax exemption must establish as a threshold requirement under the Pennsylvania Constitution that it is a "purely public charity." HUP, 507 Pa. at 13 , 487 A.2d at 1312 . 3 .

Carl v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

79 Pa. Commw. 332 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1984

We find clearly inapposite the case of Ofcansky v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 69 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 249 , 450 A.2d 806 (1982), relied upon by .the Board. … All ibhree of the medical witnesses, ail fully qualified, testified unequivocally to the contrary. Dr. Herbert C.

P. Lombardot v. Wissahickon S.D.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2026

In its motion, the Township argued that Appellant’s claims against the Township were barred because Appellant failed to produce any evidence, including expert opinion, establishing the applicability of any exceptions to immunity … As to Appellant’s claims against the Township, the trial court concluded that Appellant did not produce any evidence establishing the applicability of any of the exceptions to immunity in Section 8542(b) of the Tort Claims

Haller v. Commonwealth

693 A.2d 266 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 1997

Indeed, the Walz Court rejected “the use of a social yardstick,” as discussed above, as an element to qualify for tax exemption, because it would involve excessive government entanglement with religion. … I believe the majority’s holding is contrary to the established jurisprudence of this nation so clearly articulated by Justice Douglas in Zorach v.

Tedesco v. Municipal Authority of Hazle Township

799 A.2d 931 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2002

To establish Landowner’s damages, the expert used comparable sales for comparison. … Clearly, at issue in Bellas was an executed option agreement, which agreement was specifically found to be a sales agreement, not an offer as that term was used in Saunders . 5 .

Sukati v. Commonwealth

43 Pa. Commw. 342 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1979

to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the .purpose of pursuing such a course of study at an established institution of learning or other recognized place of … Clearly, a person who resides here under a temporary student visa is not a “permanent” resident, nor can his or her spouse have that status.

C.S. Lambing v. DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2020

The Department also asserted that “[t]o the extent [Lambing’s] claims are construed as invoking federal rights, [the Department] is insulated by qualified immunity.”2 Id. at 4, ¶ 35. … Despite his previous concession, Lambing contends in this answer that his claim falls under the exception to sovereign immunity contained in Section 8522(b)(3) of the Judicial Code, which waives sovereign immunity from claims

Vasquez v. Commonwealth

95 Pa. Commw. 1 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 1986

At the pre-screen interview, a case worker informed the petitioner that she would need to verify certain qualifying circumstances by the time of her application interview, which was then scheduled for October 16, 1984. … Exception: If a determination can be made at this point that the client is clearly ineligible, the application will be disposed of in accord with subsection (c) (7)(viii) (B) unless the client requests an application interview