Case law

Abington School District v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

111 Pa. Commw. 312 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 1987

This clearly is not what Vrotney requires. … The School District last argues that even if the work stoppage were due to a lockout, the teachers were not *319 “unemployed” within the meaning of Sections 4(u) and 401 of the Law so as to qualify for benefits.

Neshaminy School District v. Neshaminy Federation of Teachers

171 A.3d 334 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2017

This public policy is well-established in our precedent. Phila. Housing Auth., 52 A.3d at 1123-24 . … error in [the arbitrator’s] determination that any public policy regarding [the use of] aversive [teaching] techniques was not so well-defined [as to] and ascertainable by reference to the laws and legal precedents as to qualify

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. American & Croation Singing Society

18 Pa. Commw. 614 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 1975

established by uncontradicted testimony. … There were, therefore, no officers or members of the club qualified to execute the renewal application in August 1969.

Support Center for Child Advocates as G.A.L. for the Minor Child H.M. and H.M., the Minor Child v. DHS

189 A.3d 497 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2018

Clearly, a G.A.L. is included as a potential party under SPO Rule 1 and H.M.’s G.A.L. filed a writing requesting acknowledgement of party status in the expunction hearing. … Accordingly, BHA properly concluded that H.M.’s G.A.L. did not qualify as an intervenor under Section 35.28(a) of GRAPP.

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. 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

G. Scott-Mohammad v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2026

Claimant filed an application for UC benefits effective April 24, 2022, establishing a base year 3 of January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. … Cmwlth. 1983) (affirming Board determination qualifying wages employed to establish base year for granted claim cannot be used in subsequent application for benefits, noting specifically: “we would doubt that the legislature

First Philadelphia Preparatory Charter School v. Commonwealth of PA, Department of Education

179 A.3d 128 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2018

Its purpose is to enforce rights that have been clearly established. Id. … Accordingly, 14 In light of this determination, we need not address the District’s further challenges to the Section 1983 count based on its claim of immunity and its claim that Petitioners lack standing because

D. Bohman & WNEP-TV v. Clinton Twp. Volunteer Fire Co.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 2019

Section 8541 of the PSTCA establishes governmental immunity for local agencies. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541. … Accordingly, the commission did not qualify as an “agency” subject to disclosure under the Law. Id.

T.E. Bold, Jr. v. Bureau of Driver Licensing

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2022

In a footnote, however, the trial court “concede[d] that the facts clearly show that [] Licensee was in control of the ‘operation’ of the vehicle.” Id. at 52a n.6. … Furthermore, there are establishments that serve alcohol nearby.

Spadaro v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

850 A.2d 855 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2004

The resignation became effective when it was clearly accepted. … Claimant must establish both that he acted with ordinary common sense in quitting his job and that he had made a reasonable effort to preserve his employment. Stiffler v.

cbs/westinghouse v. Wcab (Fontana)

829 A.2d 1224 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2003

Thus, the fact that Claimant was not working, and thus clearly not exposed to work related hazardous occupational noise, from March 14, 1994, to February 10, 1996, does not defeat his claim for benefits, given that he was … That period of time clearly exceeds the required exposure of three days per week for forty weeks needed to qualify as long-term exposure under Section 105.6 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 25.6 In view of the foregoing, the order of

D. Frederick, P. Hagaman, and B. Taylor v. Allegheny Twp. ZHB v. CNX Gas Company, LLC. v. Allegheny Twp. v. J.H. Slike and A.E. Slike, Northmoreland Farms LP v. M. Golembeiwski

196 A.3d 677 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2018

Objectors also presented the testimony of Steven Victor, who was qualified to testify as an expert in land use planning and landscape architecture. … In this regard, the choices made by the Township in Zoning Ordinance 01-2010 must be affirmed unless clearly arbitrary and unreasonable.

Psba v. Psers

804 A.2d 737 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2002

Section 8303(c) of the Retirement Code establishes that pre-membership, part-time service in a Commonwealth school is available for the purchase of credit. III. … Thus, in Tredyffrin this Court rejected PSBA's position that only service rendered to a school district by a member qualifies for purchase of retirement credit.

Procito v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

945 A.2d 261 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2008

This is clearly a personal choice and not a domestic reason that constitutes a necessitous and compelling reason to justify the award of benefits. … Now we have a statutory scheme whereby judges decide what domestic reason for leaving a job qualifies one for benefits.

Kramer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Rite Aid Corp.)

794 A.2d 953 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2002

Claimant asserts that, if Employer made the severance payments, it clearly does not follow that insurer should reap the benefit by taking a credit for those payments. … By enacting Act 57, the Pennsylvania legislature determined that a qualified employer was entitled to a credit for severance benefits.

Murtagh v. County of Berks

715 A.2d 548 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 1998

Contrary to Taxpayers’ assertion, it is well established that the statutory remedies available to them are plain, adequate, and complete. See Murtagh I; Garrett v. Bamford, 582 F.2d 810 (3rd Cir.1978); Behe v. … Further, the court may grant judgment on the pleadings only where the moving party’s right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt that trial could clearly be a fruitless exercise, (citations and footnotes

In re the Bartkowski Investment Group, Inc.

106 A.3d 230 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2014

By order dated May 1, 2013, the trial court established a briefing schedule and set a date for oral argument. … The qualified constitutional right at issue is the right to enjoyment of private property protected under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Mancini's Bakery v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

155 Pa. Commw. 641 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 1993

The medical evidence presented by both parties clearly established, and the referee found, that Claimant was suffering from a preexisting condition aggravated by the requirements of his job. … In awarding benefits, the Supreme Court stated 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 claimant’s injury rendered

Marx Stationery & Printing Co. v. Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia

675 A.2d 769 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1996

Clearly then the Code does allow for settlement agreements of all or part of the items of damages claimed, as the tenants assert. … Alternatively, RDA argues that both experts were qualified and the weight to be given their testimony was a jury determination. Lira .