Case law

Alaska Structures, Inc. v. Department of General Services

979 A.2d 982 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2009

An “external procurement activity” is “[a] buying organization not located in this Commonwealth which if located in this Commonwealth would qualify as a public procurement unit” Id. … In his September 17, 2008 response to Alaska Structures’ protest, he clearly distinguished the procurement itself and the subsequently issued purchase order.

Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

686 A.2d 893 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1996

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 505 Pa. 480 , 489 n. 5, 480 A.2d 1000, 1005, n. 5 (1984): Vrotney by its express language qualified the length of time during which this status quo must be maintained by stating: … In a letter dated April 14, 1995, Employer expressed its belief that “the parties are now clearly at an impasse .... ” (R.R. 82a.)

Formicola v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

97 Pa. Commw. 274 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 1986

In this connection, a limitation which preserves the workmens compensation fund for those claimants who are most clearly entitled to compensation will be upheld as not infringing upon due process rights. See Guess v. … Claimant was free to argue that Decedents heart injury qualified as an occupational disease under the catch-all provision of Section 27.1(n).

Montgomery Hospital and Medical Center v. Bureau of Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund (MCARE Fund)

201 A.3d 909 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2019

Wesley Oler, Jr., this Court denied the MCARE Fund Motion, concluding the record did not clearly demonstrate that there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning Radiologists’ agent status. … (b) Staff Privilieges.— Evidence that a physician holds staff privileges at a hospital shall be insufficient to establish vicarious liability through principles of ostensible agency

Carey v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

61 A.3d 367 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2013

Certain Transfer-related records, such as those regarding the logistics of a safe mass transfer, clearly implicate public safety. … DOC does not establish these elements.

Waters v. State Employees' Retirement Board

955 A.2d 466 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2008

On this issue, Waters contends that the 2002 amendment established a new requirement for a Section 5704(f) supplement, namely that the employee must be receiving workers’ compensation benefits. … Because she received over one hundred percent of her final average salary, Waters did not qualify for a Section 5704(f) supplement.

Olson v. Borough of Avalon

811 A.2d 66 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2002

The letter also provided, among other things, that if, after the hearing, the Borough Council decided Olson was not qualified for a permanent appointment, he would be notified in writing that he would not receive a permanent … An adjudication is defined in Section 101 of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 101, as follows: Any final order, decree, decision, determination nor ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities

City of New Castle v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

118 Pa. Commw. 51 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1988

Statistics show *54 that seventy (70) percent of the adult population who are exposed to the disease are not susceptible to its ill effects, while approximately thirty (30) percent of the population have no immunity- to it … Commonwealth Ct. 461 , 442 A.2d 1223 (1982), this Court stated that a showing of unequivocal testimony is clearly established where there is an expression of a medical opinion, or where the expert testifies that in his professional

1916 Delaware Tavern, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

657 A.2d 63 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1995

The General Assembly must clearly show its intent to preempt a field in which it has legislated_ The test for preemp- tion in this Commonwealth is well established. … Although City Council’s definition of cabaret does indeed include descriptions of how much cloth entertainers must wear or, as the case may be — not wear, in order to qualify an establishment as a cabaret, Council in that

Allstate Life Insurance v. Commonwealth

992 A.2d 910 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2010

Clearly, the General Assembly delineated which types of accounts would be utilized in determining the tax credit for a specific reason. … During this time period, annuities held in pension funds *912 or by governmental entities were deemed nontaxable or “qualified” annuities.

County of Fulton, Fulton County Board of Elections v. Secretary of the Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2024

There is a slight conflict between these provisions, as Section 404 requires that a machine inspector be a qualified elector of the county and Section 402 requires that the election officer be a qualified elector of the district … We conclude that, unlike earlier, the Secretary has now established a clear right to relief, and the County has failed to do so.

Reaves v. Knauer

979 A.2d 404 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2009

In light of the above, the three prong test for opening a default judgment is clearly met. A second round of hearings limited to the issue of opening the default judgment would render the same result. … Because Plaintiff failed to establish a meritorious cause of action, the trial court properly denied Plaintiffs petition to open the judgment of non pros. 2. Dr.

C.E. Robertson v. PSERS and Greater Johnstown Career and Technology Center

162 A.3d 569 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2017

Baillie is clearly distinguishable from the case sub judiee. First, Claimant did not return to her original job. … Using Ham-mermill as a guide, we turn to the facts established in this case.” Zimmerman, 522 A.2d at 45 .

McMenamin v. Tartaglione

139 Pa. Commw. 269 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1991

He was not a registered voter at the time he took the candidate’s affidavit and it is clear that he needed to be a registered Democrat in order to qualify for the post. … City of Chester, 612 F.2d 708 (3d Cir.1979), a balancing test is established for balancing the rights of reporters under the First Amendment with those seeking the information the reporters possess.

C. Cole v. PA DEP

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2021

As explained above, the EHB’s jurisdiction over Petitioners’ challenge is clearly supported by the EHB Act. … Congress therefore clearly understood the difference between establishing direct judicial “review” over agency action (supplanting any alternative intra-agency process) and creating an exclusive judicial

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth

177 A.3d 1010 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2017

Whereas the chief executive privilege relates to the Governor, the executive and deliberative process privileges potentially available to executive branch officials, in general, are more narrow and qualified than the chief … that “[i]t was held more than eighty years ago by this court, under the present Constitution, that the Governor is exempt from the process of the courts whenever engaging in any duty pertaining to his office and that his immunity

Muir v. Alexander

858 A.2d 653 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2004

Accordingly, the Solicitor asserted that January 24, 2003, was the date for purposes of the timetables established in the Right-to-Know Law. … Thus, the Solicitor explained that he was attempting to evaluate whether appellate court decisional law in effect at the time of the Agreement’s execution would have immunized the Agreement from disclosure. 5 .

STOLTZ v. McCONNON

26 Pa. Commw. 82 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 1976

I cannot agree that by the adoption of Section 18(a) of the MTAA, 66 P.S. § 2018(a) the Legislature manifested a clear intention to change the well established common law rule that a majority of those voting, when a quorum … Again, in 1940, a unanimous Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the legislative language "by a majority vote of its qualified electors cast at any general election" means a majority of its qualified electors "present" in

BP Oil Co., Inc. v. DELAWARE CO. BD. OF AA

114 Pa. Commw. 549 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1988

Appellant challenges, specifically, the following language in the trial court's opinion: "All three men were qualified by this Court as experts, although Mr. … We, accordingly, affirm the order of the trial court establishing the 1983 assessment of the subject property.

J.T. Burke v. PA, DOC, Super. L. Harry & the Com. of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 2020

waive the immunity. … The exceptions to sovereign immunity are only applicable in situations where sovereign immunity has been waived. As explained above, immunity has not been waived for intentional acts such as conversion.”