Case law

Pennsylvania Ass'n of Independent Insurance Agents v. Foster

150 Pa. Commw. 572 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1992

Department of Health, 131 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 469, 570 A.2d 1350 (1990), for the proposition that the grant of intervention in an administrative proceeding is not a basis for establishing standing on appeal. … The agreement clearly states that it is not contrary to law. . The United States Code definition of "bank holding company" is found at 12 U.S.C. § 1841 .

Alliance Home of Carlisle v. Board of Assessment Appeals

852 A.2d 428 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2004

Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 1 , 487 A.2d 1306 (1985), our .Supreme Court set forth a five-part test for determining whether an entity qualifies as a “purely public charity” under the Pennsylvania Constitution: [A]n entity qualifies … Exemptions are established in the appropriate taxing statute.

M. Stuski v. Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, CBRE, Inc. and CB Richard Ellis, Inc. v. JPC Group Inc. and City of Philadelphia Department of Public Property

162 A.3d 1196 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 25, 2017

The parties undertook discovery. 1 By party stipulation, Defendants were granted leave to amend their answer and new matter to include a new matter claim that PAID is a local agency entitled to immunity under … The record clearly established that the City, rather than Defendants, had control over the Parking Lot, and was responsible for maintaining it free of snow and ice at the time of Stuski’s fall.8 Because there are no material

Teamsters Local 115 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

152 Pa. Commw. 394 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1992

A close examination of the Judicial Code (Code), however, establishes that this Court does have jurisdiction over this appeal. … There we noted that Act 195 cannot constitutionally be interpreted as immunizing judicial employees from the inherent judicial power of discharge.

Robal Associates, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Charlestown Township

999 A.2d 630 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2010

In this regard, the proposed sledding hill near several residential buildings and roads did not qualify as open space. … This determination, which is one of many on the minimum open space issue, clearly supports the conclusion that Ro-bal’s plan failed to meet the requirement.

P.R. Piper v. R.M. Marolf

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2023

DOT received actual written notice of the dangerous conditions of State Route 4006 (S.R. 4006); Piper could not establish that DOT received such notice; and DOT was entitled to sovereign immunity because the pothole exception … DOT argues common pleas correctly held DOT is immune from Piper’s claim of negligence because Piper has not established that DOT received actual written notice of S.R. 4006’s dangerous condition and, therefore, could not

Franklin Plastics Corp. v. Department of Environmental Resources

657 A.2d 100 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1995

The Court concluded that “it may be regarded as definitely settled that cross-examination may embrace any matter germane to the direct examination, qualifying or destroying it, or tending to develop facts which have been … In the matter sub judice, the record does not demonstrate that the testimony Franklin sought to elicit from Carlini was obviously directed toward developing Franklin’s own case; it was clearly directed toward discrediting

Golfview Manor, Inc. v. Commonwealth

51 Pa. Commw. 323 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 1980

requirements in their quarterly contribution reports. 3 After an Examiner’s Hearing on Golfview Manor’s Reassessment Petition, a denial was ordered by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry: 4 “Tip income computed in qualifying … Subsection (x) clearly labels all payments made by employer to employee for inclusion as wages.

J.E. Trivelpiece v. Briar Creek Borough ZHB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2026

The Board decided that Applicant’s current use is a qualifying nonconforming use to which he is entitled. Bd. Dec. at 1. … It is anticipated that [Applicant] will argue that the industrial use and driveway are not part of this special exception application[;] however, it clearly is.

Leach v. Commonwealth

118 A.3d 1271 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2015

Clearly, these are vastly different activities. … Compl. at ¶ 37. , Respondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also filed preliminary objections, asserting it is immune from suit.

P.F. Fagan v. Bell Acres Mun. Auth. v. Shoup Eng'g., Inc. ~ Appeal of: Bell Acres Mun. Auth.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2024

and the Fagans did not establish an exception to its immunity, (2) the trial court did not address the Authority’s primary immunity argument and provided no basis for denying its motion, (3) the Fagans cannot prevail on … immunity.

J.O. Lozado v. WCAB (Dependable Concrete Work and UEGF)

123 A.3d 365 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2015

Section 303(a) of the Act establishes that an employer’s liability under the Act is exclusive and an employer is immune from suit under the common law. 77 P.S. § 481(a). … Claimant contends that the WCJ disregarded conflicting evidence that clearly shows that he could not be reasonably 15 charged with actual knowledge that Employer was neither insured

West v. Department of Public Welfare

150 Pa. Commw. 59 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1992

duties of the position to which appointed or promoted, to a position in any class in the classified service in which the employee previously had the status of a regular employee, or to any position for which the employee is qualified … Clearly, the facts in the case at bar are distinguishable from those in White . There is ample testimony on the record revealing that Employer actively sought Employee’s services in the IBM I role.

Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

64 Pa. Commw. 299 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1982

Luksa summarized the position of the company by first noting that its facilities on the bridge are located exclusively within a private easement which would have qualified the company for full reimbursement if, as the township … In Somerset County the record clearly established that much of the five mile highway project there at issue *314 was intended by the Department of Transportation to address hazardous road conditions including worn macadem

COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Kmetz

129 Pa. Commw. 97 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1989

The new matter raised, inter alia, immunity from suit and the statute of limitations as affirmative defenses to this action. … This qualitative difference clearly distinguishes the two cases. Bruno, 515 Pa. at 50, n. 1 , 526 A.2d at 784, n. 1 (emphasis added).

Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

869 A.2d 1144 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2005

Further, the eligible replacement property must actually be in service for at least a month to qualify for recovery. … The PUC concluded the surcharge will not “disassemble” traditional rate-making because it is tailored to recover clearly defined costs for specific, narrow categories of plant and is capped at 5%.

C. Wright v. City of Phila.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2025

Wright has failed to establish how the City violated Pa.R.P.C. 1.7(a)(2)’s prohibition of concurrent representation, or how the Rules of Professional Conduct are at all relevant. Id. at 5-6. … Wright further contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law by finding that the City was shielded from suit by sovereign immunity. Id. at 17. Next, Mr.

R.L. Carr v. PennDOT, PA SCSC

189 A.3d 1 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2018

The establishment of conditions of service which will attract to the service of the Commonwealth qualified persons of character and ability and their appointment and promotion on the basis of merit and … Such results would clearly be contrary to the Act’s purpose of rendering personnel decisions on the basis of merit criteria.

Hicks v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

139 Pa. Commw. 54 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 1991

SEPTA filed an answer and new matter denying that it was responsible for the maintenance of the pavement between the rails and raising the defense of immunity. … The obligation of the Commonwealth in the reconstruction, resurfacing or maintenance as hereinbefore provided shall be limited to that part of the street or section thereof between curb lines as established at the time of

McGill v. PA. DEPT. OF HEALTH

758 A.2d 268 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2000

The purpose of mandamus is not to establish legal rights, but to enforce those rights already established beyond peradventure. Africa v. Horn, 701 A.2d 273 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997). … Although federal law clearly anticipates the use of block grant money to fund treatment programs that meet accepted standards, McGill does not state a cause of action in mandamus here because federal law gives McGill an adequate