Case law

McKenzie v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

674 A.2d 1167 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1996

Goldberg’s studies establish that TCE is a cardiac specific human teratogen. Dr. … Goldberg’s studies, pointing out flaws contained in the methodology and citing to other studies that clearly refute Dr. Goldberg’s findings. As to the Tuscon Paper and Yuma Paper, Dr.

Greenwich Township v. Murtagh

659 A.2d 1083 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1995

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Clearly, the provisions of the GCAL and TCCAL reveal that the General Assembly, by legislative enactment, has granted directly to the Board and the County the authority to make municipal policy with respect to the supervision

Pennsylvania State Police v. McPherson

831 A.2d 800 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2003

This version of Section 6109 clearly provides no authority to the PSP to investigate the applicant and, pursuant to this version, our court in Gardner v. … This evidence clearly supports the conclusion that McPherson pled guilty to a portion of the statute which includes the use of physical force as an element.

Commonwealth v. Transit Casualty Insurance

20 Pa. Commw. 43 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1975

Wilson described Markel’s activities on behalf of the respondent in these terms and convincingly established the agency-principal relationship. … Clearly in this case the award of lost earnings amounted to an award of back pay.

Finucane v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board

136 Pa. Commw. 681 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1990

This type of telephonic communication clearly cannot replace actual attendance at the Board meeting without specific legislative authorization, nor can it qualify as a “quorum” of members as required under the Sunshine Act … A telephone conference call does not qualify.

Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry

131 A.3d 567 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2016

Haubrich’s employment, having terminated one week prior to her request, clearly qualifies as “presently elapsed” employment and/or “most recent” employment, thereby, falling within the statute. Id. … Lynn, 114 A.3d 796, 827 (Pa. 2015) (emphasis added). 5  Here, TJU maintains that the General Assembly’s rejection of the Act’s proposed amendments established the

Park v. Chronister

151 Pa. Commw. 562 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 1992

The Commissioner’s construction of the UIPA is not, in our view, clearly erroneous. … Section 26 of the Plan Rules was amended, effective August 6, 1990, to establish the Producer Certification Program.

D & R Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Suarez, Travelers Insurance Co., Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund, & T & L Development)

167 A.3d 837 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2017

Whether the Board erred by considering the CWMA as guidance for the application of the common law analysis to determine who qualifies as an independent contractor? … Clearly, however, some 11 See Section 3(a)(1) of the CWMA, 43 P.S. § 933.3(a)(1). 12 See Section 3(a)(3) of the CWMA, 43 P.S. § 933.3(a)(3). 13 See Section 3(b)(1) of the CWMA

Armstrong Telecommunications, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission

835 A.2d 409 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2003

As to the Section 251(f)(2) suspension, the Commission found that Citizens clearly qualified for the limited suspension and modification of its obligations that the Commission had provided to other rural telephone companies … Because the provisions of Section 702 clearly envisioned a full hearing, including the development of a record and a decision by the Commission based on that hearing with full findings, in other words, a new adjudication,

In Re: Opening a Private Road for the Benefit of T.P. O'Reilly v. (a) Hickory on the Green HOA, and (b) M.L. Sorbara

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2014

were sold with the condition that a purchaser could establish a private road to access a public road. … Is this long established doctrine also to be eviscerated by subjecting it to the “primary and paramount public purpose” limitation?

Haslam v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (London Grove Communication)

169 A.3d 704 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2017

In this regard, even without reference to “various injuries” under the C&R [Agreement] (under which the ambit of additional conditions would qualify), relief can appropriately be granted … The claimant appealed to this 8 The C&R Agreement clearly limited Employer’s responsibility for the indemnity aspects of Claimant’s work injury.

Kahn v. Commonwealth

127 Pa. Commw. 329 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1989

The Board specifically determined that Claimant had established a base year consisting of all four quarters of 1987 and found the breakdown of his wages to be as follows: 3. … At the hearing Claimant testified that he had received the judgment and also clearly testified that the judgment had not yet been paid to him.

Herr v. Lancaster County Planning Commission

155 Pa. Commw. 379 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 1993

Once qualified by area, the lot lines could then be approximated. … Herr’s reliance on these precedents is misplaced, however, because they are clearly distinguishable from the case now before us.

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

654 A.2d 213 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1995

In order to qualify for reinstatement of compensation benefits after the issuance of a termination in favor of employer, a claimant has the burden of establishing a causal connection between his current condition and the … Since Claimant clearly failed to sustain his burden of proof, he was not entitled to a reinstatement of benefits and the Board must be reversed in this regard.

R. Chaudhuri v. Capital Area Transit

131 A.3d 589 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2016

There is clearly a preference to have pedestrians to cross at the crosswalk, because they are clearly marked and everybody at those intersections is aware they must yield to … Perhaps more importantly, when the charge is considered as a whole, the trial court’s objected-to statement is merely a passing comment that was immediately succeeded with qualifying statements.

City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1

850 A.2d 846 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2004

In terms of provider networks, the City would have to obtain competitive bids from qualified bidders, and based on the bidding process, at least one, and possibly more, networks of providers would be offered at no cost options … Section 4(a) of Act 111, 43 P.S. § 217.4(a), clearly states that interest arbitration can be triggered only by a party giving written notice to the other party “containing specifications of the issue or issues in dispute.

Carbondale Area School District v. Fell Charter School

829 A.2d 400 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2003

In doing so, the General Assembly clearly intended that the CAB should not limit its review simply to a determination of whether the local school board abused its discretion, i.e., whether its findings were based on substantial … The Application states that Fell will “seek well-qualified, experienced individuals” and “hire, train and strive to retain star teachers and talented leaders in educational management.” (Application at 86.)

Wissinoming Bottling Co. v. School District of Philadelphia

654 A.2d 208 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1995

These fees are collected for the benefit of the municipalities in which the licensed establishments are located and are rebated by the Commonwealth to those municipalities. … Further, school districts are local agencies for purposes of Sections 8541 and 8542 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541-42 (pertaining to governmental immunity), and the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §§ 551—55 and §§ 751

Gaffney v. City of Philadelphia

728 A.2d 1049 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1999

In Walls , this court held that a promotion list cannot be extended by agreement or by the order of a court because: The legislature has spoken on this issue quite clearly. … Further, the testing process for qualifying fire department lieutenants is a matter of important public interest.

W. Slack v. F.J. Slack, Jr., & J.D. Lonergan

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2021

decisions of this Court issued after January 15, 2008, may be cited for their persuasive value. 13 The Zoning Ordinance defines “accessory use” as “[a] use located on the same lot with the principal use, and clearly … The facts of this case clearly establish that the affirmative defense of acquiescence applies to this case. Trial Court Opinion at 9.