Case law

Pennsylvania Department of Banking v. NCAS of Delaware, LLC

995 A.2d 422 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2010

Under Cash Advance Centers’ new line of credit product, a $500 credit line is provided to qualifying Pennsylvania borrowers. … Under Advance America’s line of credit product, Advance America provided a $500 credit line to qualifying Pennsylvania borrowers.

Commonwealth, Public School Employes' Retirement Board v. Matthews

806 A.2d 971 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2002

Section 3(a) of Act 140 clearly prohibits a public employee from receiving retirement benefits upon conviction of a crime related to public employment. … However, Act 140 clearly and unambiguously requires a forfeiture of benefits of a public employee who commits a forfeitable offense.

J. Ali v. Philadelphia City Planning Commission

125 A.3d 92 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2015

The RTKL clearly addresses proposals for construction/redevelopment projects. … Hence, this renders the appeal moot, as these records are clearly subject to disclosure.

Costello v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

916 A.2d 1242 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2007

For one thing, as noted above, the legislation did clearly and specifically address past periods. … Claimant also states an argument that the evidence may be interpreted to establish a common law marriage before September 17, 2003.

Harrisburg Area Community College v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2020

Moreover, since implied repeals are not favored, “legislative intent to repeal a statute by enacting another must be clearly shown.” Id. … The Court framed the question before it as “whether the [p]olicy violates the immunity provision of the MMA.” Gass, 232 A.3d at 711.

In re Condemnation of Lands Situated & Being in Scraton

156 Pa. Commw. 388 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1993

Condemnors appealed to this Court. 1 It is well established in Pennsylvania that a trial court abuses its discretion when it grants a new trial merely because it would have arrived at a different conclusion on the facts of … In fact, Section 705(2) of the Code, 26 P.S. § 1-705(2), provides that a qualified valuation expert may testify as to the valuation of a property in a variety of ways, and that such testimony is not limited to the enumerated

M. Kyung Kim & J. Kyung Kim, h&w v. Com. of PA, DOT

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2022

Rule 1028(a)(1) of Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure governs the procedure for POs and clearly provides that a PO on the ground of improper venue “may be filed by any party.” … The Court explained that one defendant’s waiver “did not have the effect of establishing proper venue for all remaining defendants.” Id. at 1391.

D.A. Dietrich v. Dept. of Ag. (OOR)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 24, 2024

Code §179.2, defines the word “adjudication” as “[a]n order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by the [SHRC] affecting the personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations of … Section 306 of the RTK Law informs that the Law shall not supersede or modify the public nature of a record or document established, inter alia, by regulation.

Baker v. Upper Southampton Township Zoning Hearing Board

830 A.2d 600 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2003

Before a reviewing tribunal may declare a zoning ordinance unconstitutional, the challenging party must clearly establish that the provisions of the ordinance are arbitrary and unreasonable. … In opposition, Clear Channel presented the testimony of John Caruolo, who was qualified as an expert in traffic engineering. Mr.

Iacono v. Worker's Compensation Appeal Board

155 Pa. Commw. 234 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1993

Iacono, clearly competent to testify on the subject, presented his own testimony regarding his continuing pain. Thus, review under the substantial evidence standard is appropriate. … Shatouhy later qualified this statement and stated that he would suggest limitations to avoid a recurrence of Iacono’s lumbar strain to which he was vulnerable; Iacono had, in fact, already suffered two episodes of such strains

In re the Humane Society of the Harrisburg Area, Inc.

92 A.3d 1264 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2014

Indeed, not only does the current statute fail to “clearly and manifestly” mandate retroactivity, a contrary legislative intent is suggested. … As we see no reason to depart from such an established principle, we reaffirm that a crime is infamous for purposes of Article II, Section 7, if its underlying facts establish a felony, a crimen falsi offense, or a like offense

Commonwealth v. Brown

125 Pa. Commw. 372 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1989

No otherwise qualified individuals with handicaps in the United States, as defined in section 7(8) [ 29 U.S.C. §706 (8)], shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, … the drivers argument that the Act applied in his case because he was a handicapped individual (he had a heart attack), and because DOT had recalled his school bus drivers license solely because of that handicap, without establishing

Rothschild v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Cheltenham Township

1 Pa. Commw. 10 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1970

However, the record in this case would seem to establish that the 1952 proposed and approved change in nonconforming use never toolc place. … In the opinion below Judge Low® clearly reviewed the disputed points óf fact and found ample basis to affirm the findings of the Board.

L.C. Velez v. J.E. Wetzel, Sec. of Corr'

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2024

However, courts allow an exception where the defense is “clearly applicable on the face of the complaint.” Minor v. Kraynak, 155 A.3d 114, 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (citation omitted). … “The mere occurrence of an accident does not establish negligent conduct.” Id.

Fink v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

678 A.2d 853 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1996

The record clearly shows that claimant has a history of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease secondary to cigarette smoking and bronchial asthma. … Otis Elevator Co., 431 Pa. 446 , 246 A.2d 668 (1968), firmly established that a claimant need not be so crippled or diseased as to be helpless in order to qualify for workmen’s compensation; rather, it is sufficient that

A. Elansari v. The Com. of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2024

. § 8522(b), establishes the circumstances for which sovereign immunity is waived by a Commonwealth party, which is defined in Section 8501 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8501, as “[a] Commonwealth agency and any employee … , which are not automatically barred by sovereign immunity.

City of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Board of License & Inspection Review ex rel. Craddock

669 A.2d 460 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1995

The term “adjudication” under Section 752 of the Law is defined as “[a]ny final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities … As long as the functions of the City Law Department in the Board’s proceeding are clearly divided, there will be no commingling of pros-ecutorial and adjudicatory roles. Id.

Richardson v. Commonwealth, Department of Corrections

97 A.3d 430 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2014

Initially, we note that the law is well-established that “legislation will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution, with any doubts being resolved in favor of constitutionality … Thus, the Court’s analysis in Jae is clearly applicable to Richardson’s due process claim.

A. Oakes v. J. Richardson

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2020

Discussion Generally, a local agency and its employees are immune from suit, unless immunity is specifically waived. 42 Pa. C.S. §§8541, 8542. The Township is a local agency. … The mere fact that an entity performs a function for which the municipality would enjoy immunity if the municipality performed it directly does not mean that the entity automatically enjoys immunity.

Borough of Braddock v. Sullivan Plumbing, Inc.

954 A.2d 672 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2008

This issue clearly is no longer in the case. Next Sullivan argues that the laches defense raised factual questions to be determined at trial. … Referring to the historical reluctance of the courts to apply estop-pel to the government, the Court noted that the reasons offered were strikingly similar to the reasons supporting the doctrine of sovereign immunity and