Case law

Catania v. Commonwealth, State Employees' Retirement Board

71 Pa. Commw. 393 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 1983

. §§5101-5956, eliminated the final average salary freeze but established a reduction of 25% in the multipliers for the benefits formula. … involved here), nor even to the one plaintiff who joined the retirement plan after that date because, even in the view of those justices who would refuse summary judgment in favor of those judges in other respects, the freeze clearly

J.T. Vanvoorhis and S.L. Fox v. Shrewsbury Twp.

176 A.3d 429 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2017

This is clearly not consistent with the fact that no development right was exhausted when the Property was subdivided in 1999. … A remand is therefore necessary to establish, quite simply, what the Township knew regarding the use of the summer house, and when the Township knew it.

West Mifflin Area School District v. Zahorchak

956 A.2d 1040 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2008

South Allegheny’s hiring one teacher does not establish harm where there is no allegation that the teacher was ineffective or that the district was required to reject a more qualified applicant. … The act at issue stated that a pilot program was being established to assess effectiveness of the new approach.

M.B. Selig v. North Whitehall ZHB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2020

First, a party may raise the affirmative defense of immunity as a preliminary objection where it is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint; that is, that a cause … to local agency immunity set forth in . . . 42 Pa.

Old Republic Companies v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Eckenrode, Rockwood Insurance Company)

103 Pa. Commw. 159 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1987

Wheeling established that claimant was disabled. … Clearly, such testimony, if believed, would constitute substantial evidence to support the referees findings. See Estate of McGovern v.

Richards v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

731 A.2d 214 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 1999

The job center, referee and UCBR all denied Au-berzinsky benefits upon determining that he did not have sufficient base year wages to financially qualify for unemployment compensation under section 401(a) of the Unemployment … This title clearly places the reader on notice that the general subject matter of Act 57 is the workers’ compensation law.

Venesky v. Ridge

789 A.2d 862 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2002

The members of the commission shall hold office for terms of eight years each and may continue to hold office for a period of time not to exceed six months or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever occurs … The term of office for a game commissioner under the Game and Wildlife Code is fixed, but clearly the stat *865 ute does not provide for staggered expiration dates.

Duquesne Light Co. v. Board of Property Assessment

10 Pa. Commw. 41 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1973

Commonwealth Ct. 196 , 277 A. 2d 849 (1971), and the record in this case clearly establishes that the Utilities did pay the state gross receipts taxes for the years in question. … Therefore, AT&T does not qualify for the exemption provided for in Article VIII, Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968.

E. Scott, Jr. v. The PA D.O.C.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2022

Establishing a limited list of exceptions to immunity, the General Assembly adopted . . . the Sovereign Immunity Act[.] . . . … Rather, Manager Kelly explained: Staff followed established policy and procedures.

D.J. Olean v. Com. of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2021

He was told that the ARP Plan employer contribution rate was established by statute, and there were plans to make the ARP Plan benefit “comparable” to the SERS Plan. Id., ¶¶64-65, Ex. 6. … Courts, however, have permitted a limited exception to this rule and allowed parties to raise the affirmative defense as a preliminary objection where the defense is “clearly applicable on the face of the [petition for review

Walker Pontiac, Inc. v. Department of State, Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs

136 Pa. Commw. 54 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1990

adequate competition and convenient customer care for the vehicles of the line-make in the market area which shall include the adequacy of the vehicle sales and service facilities, equipment, supply of vehicle parts and qualified … The evidence clearly shows that the dealership was not a factor in that market and had been moribund for a long time. 8 . See SmithKline Beckman v. Commonwealth, 85 Pa.

Crouse v. Commonwealth

729 A.2d 1268 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 1999

Crouse was terminated for his failure to cooperate with the LCB’s efforts to establish a long-term status for him. … The letter also states clearly that Crouse had to apply for disability retirement before his termination.

Melcher v. Berks County Board of Assessment Appeals

93 A.3d 522 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2014

If a landowner changes the use of any tract of land subject to preferential assessment under the Act, such that the tract no longer qualifies for the preferential assessment, the preferential assessment is revoked and the … The trial court advised Landowner to clearly mark off and set apart the portions of the Grassy Lot Component that would be available for patron parking, to ensure that the use never exceeds two acres. (Id.)

J. Mancini v. County of Northampton

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2025

Therefore, there is nothing presented that persuades us that the County has clearly established the second prong of Rule 313 so as to allow immediate review of this issue. … Accordingly, we are not convinced that the County has clearly established the third prong of Rule 313 so as to allow immediate review of this issue.

Waros v. Borough of Vandergrift

161 Pa. Commw. 538 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1994

Article XX, Paragraph 4 reads as follows: The Borough agrees to provide that in the event of the death of a Policemen [sic] who was receiving a pension or who had qualified for a [sic] retirement pension benefits but was … Therefore, we conclude that the word “may” in section 1 is permissive and clearly manifests the legislative intent that the prescription of widow’s benefits rests in the Borough’s discretion. See Commonwealth v.

D. Holmes v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2020

Cmwlth. 2014). 1 “Pennsylvania courts . . . have allowed parties to plead the affirmative defense of immunity as a preliminary objection where the defense is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint … Here, the immunity defense is clearly applicable on the face of the Petition. 2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6601-6608. 3 Based on this Court’s review of the Petition, Holmes is not seeking punitive damages

Church Street Associates v. County of Clinton

959 A.2d 490 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2008

Finally, Taxpayers argue that the Trial Court erred in establishing the capitalization rate at issue. … Despite Taxpayers’ arguments, there is no evidence of record suggesting that ownership or transfer of these properties would be onerous and/or preclude a willing purchaser from qualifying.

E. N. Ex Rel. E.N. v. M. School District

928 A.2d 453 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2007

In this case, the Panel clearly agreed with the District’s position as set forth above. … Section 16.63 of Title 22 of the Pennsylvania Code establishes the procedures for Impartial Due Process hearings arising from a district’s determination of whether a child qualifies as gifted.

Redevelopment Authority v. Pulakos

17 Pa. Commw. 251 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1975

The record clearly shows that the facing of this building was highly decorative and difficult to reproduce. … Machinery and equipment experts are often not qualified to evaluate land and buildings.

Daniels v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

753 A.2d 293 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2000

Based on the foregoing, the WCJ determined that Employer had sustained its burden of establishing that Claimant was fully recovered from his work injury of December 13, 1990 as of November 7, 1991. Id. at p. 5. … See [Hankee], Employers pay benefits at a set rate and they are immune from common-law liability. See id")-, Vescio v.