Case law

Commonwealth v. Packer

754 A.2d 44 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2000

We cannot agree that Holmes had the right to bury the tires because the SWMA clearly prohibits the dumping or depositing of solid waste “underground.” 35 P.S. 6018.610(l). 11 Moreover, we hold that section 610(1) of the SWMA … Although we question, the need to qualify Strutynski as an expert in excavation, Holmes fails to show how he was prejudiced by this testimony.

Human Development of Erie, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board

143 Pa. Commw. 675 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1991

Supreme Court established state courts' jurisdiction over Section 1983 claims and their authority to award attorney's fees pursuant to Section 1988. … Clearly, under case law interpreting Section 1988, the trial court has authority to award attorney's fees in the instant action.

C. Jordan v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2025

Here, Jordan clearly sued “Commonwealth parties” as defined by the Judicial Code. See Small v. Trees (Pa. … Jordan’s brief does not offer any facts or legal citation to establish when the applicable statute of limitations was going to expire or what, if any, circumstances prevented him from commencing his action earlier.

K.B. v. Delaware County Office of Judicial Support, and Mary J. Walk, in her official capacity as Director of the Delaware County Office of Judicial Support

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2025

Accordingly, the Office violated CHRIA by failing to docket and disseminate the expungement order, whereas Director did not.8 This brings us to Petitioner’s related assertion that he has clearly established … Ams. for Fair 8 Given this, we need not address Respondents’ argument that Director has official and/or sovereign immunity against Petitioner’s CHRIA claim.

Teamann v. Zafris

811 A.2d 52 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2002

Litigation followed. 2 Prior to trial, the Turnpike Commission and Lane Construction filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings alleging that they were immune from suit against all of the parties pursuant to the statute … of limitations, doctrine of sovereign immunity and the government contract defense.

Appeal of Chartiers Valley School District

67 Pa. Commw. 121 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 1982

The “reproduction cost approach” is not a recognized method of establishing market value in tax assessment eases. … The witness clearly defined the parameters of his comprehensive study and rendered an opinion based on his findings, as to the existing ratio.

Burgoon v. Zoning Hearing Board

2 Pa. Commw. 238 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1971

Moreover, Fox Hollow Farms Equestrian Center, Inc., has in its curriculum a program directed toward qualifying its students to instruct in the Equestrian Art. 9 Horses are available only to those taking riding instruction … Therefore, the establishment of an aquatic school was denied.

G.S. Lepre, Jr. v. US Bancorp v. PA Dept. of Treasury Bureau of Unclaimed Funds ~ Appeal of: G.S. Lepre, Jr.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2019

On June whether the trial court properly held that Lepre failed to establish an exception to sovereign immunity; and (3) whether the doctrine of custodia legis bars Lepre from enforcing his judgment. … Lepre clearly raised the issue of sovereign immunity in his “Statement of the Questions Involved” in his brief and referred to it in his argument; therefore, this Court shall consider it. See Ramins v. Chem.

J.G. Bergdoll Registered Voter of the Commonwealth of PA v. Pedro A. Cortes and The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2017

Qualified Electors of Clairton, 683 A.2d at 286 (emphasis added). … Qualified Electors of Clairton, 683 A.2d at 286.

Newport Homes, Inc. v. Kassab

17 Pa. Commw. 317 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1975

if they can *323 be characteried as a matter of law as “adjudications.” “ ‘Adjudication’ means any final order, decree, decision, determination, or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities … The denial of special hauling permits, as opposed to the promulgation of the “final directive” here attacked, is clearly a final decision of an agency which affect Appellants’ privilege to transport mobile homes with widths

Cope v. INSURANCE COM'R OF COM.

955 A.2d 1043 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2008

Therefore, whether Provider knew that the Amended Summons was a claim for medical malpractice does not establish that Provider had notice that the Kayser claim qualified for Section 715 coverage. … Further, the statute does not qualify what the notice must contain.

Schatz v. New Britain Township Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment

141 Pa. Commw. 525 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 1991

1 We are guided in our review of this matter by a number of firmly established legal principles. … Ordinance, and the Ordinance clearly sets forth that a licensed nursing or convalescent home is an institutional use.

Gazebo, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

112 Pa. Commw. 37 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1987

As a matter of law, such findings clearly are sufficient to justify the boards refusal to modify the two conditions *47 affecting noise emanation. … The import of the testimony of the applicants qualified audiological expert, as drawn from pp. 3-5 of the Appellees’ Brief, was substantially as follows: A zero noise level is virually nonexistent.

Homer v. Public School Employes' Retirement Board

692 A.2d 632 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1997

Once it is established that the relevant modifications to the pension plan meet this threshold requirement, Homer must further establish that these modifications were intended as a subterfuge. … filing of a proper application, be entitled to a disability annuity if, prior to attainment of superannuation age, he becomes mentally or physically incapable of continuing to perform the duties for which he is employed and qualifies

Foreman v. Union Township Zoning Hearing Board

787 A.2d 1099 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2001

To qualify as a continuation of an existing nonconforming use, a proposed use need not be identical to the preexisting use. Limley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Port Vue Borough, 533 Pa. 340 , 625 A.2d 54 (1993). … Hence, Philm is clearly distinguishable and does not support the Township’s contention.

Commonwealth v. Ballard

17 Pa. Commw. 310 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 1975

It reasoned that “ [w] hile the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s [sic Transportation’s] records may be offered through qualified witnesses or by proper certification of the documents . . . there is no such provision as to … Accordingly, we feel that this case should be remanded so that Ballard, if she wishes, may have an opportunity to conduct a defense within the narrow limits established by the Superior Court in Virnelson Motor Vehicle Opera

Flores v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

686 A.2d 66 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1996

factual determination individually, and after conducting a careful review of the applicable law, we conclude that each Claimant was discharged for conduct that far surpassed the boundaries of any protected labor activity and clearly … Just as Claimants here, Ortiz had to establish proper cause as a prerequisite to presenting evidence on the merits of her appeal.

Commonwealth, Department of General Services v. United States Mineral Products Co.

809 A.2d 1000 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2002

It is also weU established that a witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience.... Formal education on the subject matter of the testimony is not required.... … Monsanto also argues that Plaintiffs failed to establish product identification.

Com. of PA, PA Game Comm. v. SCSC (Wheeland)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2019

establish a prima facie case herein. … Clearly, this testimony does not satisfy the conditions of the hearsay rule exceptions for establishing that either document qualifies as a regularly conducted activity record or a public record.

Aetna Electroplating Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

116 Pa. Commw. 66 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 1988

Claimant could not take inventory, or check plant equipment because it was too heavy to move, calibrate the thickness of various metals, place metals into and remove them from baking ovens, or clearly write in-r structions … There can be no question that the Final Receipt in this case was a very qualified one.