Case law

Uniontown Hosp. v. COM. DEPT. OF HEALTH

905 A.2d 560 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2006

They contend that the Department has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to use money as specified in the statute appropriating the funds — meaning that the Department must comply with the qualifiers in the definition of … enacting such measures through separate bills with the purpose clearly expressed in their titles as required by Article III, Section 3.

Pennsylvania Waste Industries Ass'n v. Monroe County Municipal Waste Management Authority

80 A.3d 546 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2013

The Authority here qualifies as such. … Clearly, fees which are the subject of such extensive regulation deserve careful review by courts for conformity with Act 101.

Reading Anthracite Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

120 Pa. Commw. 577 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1988

This Court must therefore determine, in light of the entire record; whether the Board erred in finding that Employer failed to sufficiently establish that the loss of use of Claimants right leg is permanent. … Contrary to Employers assertions, “permanence” of Claimant’s specific loss cannot be clearly found in Dr. van den Hoven’s testimony.

City of Warren v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

156 A.3d 371 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2017

Singer was highly qualified to offer an expert opinion.5 5 In support of its Frye motion, Employer made two arguments. First, Employer argued that Dr. … It established a new occupational disease for a particular class of employee, a firefighter, not previously established in the Act, and it erected a new statute of repose for these claims.

Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. State College Area School District

9 Pa. Commw. 229 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1973

Act 195 affords to public employes a limited and qualified right to strike and to bargain collectively. 4. … A statute is never presumed to deprive the state of any prerogative or right unless the intention to do so is clearly manifest, either by express terms or necessary implications. Hoffman v.

Kirkpatrick v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs, State Board of Barber Examiners

117 A.3d 1286 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2015

Subsections (3) and (4) clearly implicate the practice of barbering, as they refer to disciplining a licensee for “perform[ing] work in an unsanitary or filthy manner or place of business,” and being “grossly incompetent, … It is true that the mere possession of discretionary power by an administrative .body does not make it wholly immune from judicial review, but the scope of that review is limited to the determination of whether there has

Christopher v. Council of Plymouth Township

160 Pa. Commw. 670 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 1993

However, the court in Boyle further qualified this statement by noting that fraud based on innocent misrepresentation must be based upon a showing that one has the means to obtain knowledge of the truth before making the … This is clearly not the situation in the present matter.

T. Washington v. Commonwealth of PA and City of Philadelphia T. Washington v. PennDOT ~ Appeal of: T. Washington

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2017

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity. … These exceptions “are clearly written and create a very narrow exception to the defense of sovereign immunity for damages caused by potholes.” Stevens, 492 A.2d at 493.

Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

116 A.3d 1157 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2015

Yarus explained that this calculation was appropriate because the table relates to severe motor deficits in the lower extremities and a foot drop qualifies as such. Dr. … C.S. § 704. .Section 422(a) provides: All parties to an adjudicatory proceeding are entitled to a reasoned decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence as a whole which *1162 clearly

W. Thomas v. K. Smith, Major of Security at DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2023

However, courts allow an exception where the defense is “clearly applicable on the face of the complaint.” Minor v. Kraynak, 155 A.3d 114, 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (citation omitted). … Where the petitioner does not object to a PO that raises sovereign immunity, the court may rule on the sovereign immunity issue. Id.; see Smolsky v. Pennsylvania General Assembly, 34 A.3d 316, 321 n.7 (Pa.

Saucon Valley School District v. Robert O.

785 A.2d 1069 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2001

The regulations clearly indicate that the District is responsible for the membership of the IEP team. Moreover, the regulations set forth the minimum membership of the IEP team. … Rather, the Panel’s action would require the District to include members in excess of that established in the regulations.

Kress v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

23 A.3d 632 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2011

Therefore, Claimant’s business qualified as a sideline business and benefits were allowed. 3 Employer appealed, and a hearing was held before the Referee. … Clearly, his sideline job was not a primary source of income at $10,000 a year compared to his law firm job paying $65,000 a year, and Claimant met the fourth prong as well.

Rochez Bros. v. Commonwealth

18 Pa. Commw. 137 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1975

The Board properly concluded that none of Lucerne’s constitutional rights were violated despite the fact that the record clearly establishes that there is no known method to operate beehive coke ovens in compliance with the … We believe that it is important to qualify our holding in this case concerning DER’s duty to consider economic impact.

Cent. Dauphin Sch. Dist. v. D. of Educ.

147 Pa. Commw. 426 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1992

Some school districts will qualify for state subsidies not available to other districts. Some school districts may request a tax rebate waiver from the Secretary. … The School Districts argue that the facts in paragraphs 8 and 9 are relevant to an interpretation of Act 25 "because they clearly establish the inconsistent, uncertain and haphazard nature of the information upon which school

Williams v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

862 A.2d 137 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2004

Claimant’s mere repeated incantations of the phrase “reasoned decision”, without any accompanying development or authority on the issue, are insufficient to establish it as a reviewable ground on appeal. … The record clearly shows that Dr. Carr testified, as noted in the WCJ’s summation of Dr.

Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. v. Commonwealth

158 Pa. Commw. 165 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 1993

Clearly Lancaster qualifies as a domestic entity under Section 601(a) and is subject to the capital stock tax. *170 However, Lancaster bases its claims for an exemption upon the following language in Section 602(a): [T]he … In Kirks Milk Products we established a two-prong test to determine whether an activity is manufacturing.

Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Department of Environmental Protection

129 A.3d 28 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2015

Using Form 8.8B, (Stream Delineation and Bioassessment Summary), include baseline information on fish and macroinvertebrate communities sufficient to delineate stream segments that qualify … The eighth ground, challenging the Department’s reliance on the Guide for determining and evaluating the contents of permit applications clearly pertains only to Special Condition No. 77, as no other bases have been asserted

Police Pension Fund Ass'n Board v. Hess

127 Pa. Commw. 498 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1989

Summary judgment is properly granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party has clearly established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Kuehner v. … In Wright , the Supreme Court permitted an amendment, effective after “vesting,” that fixed a deadline for repayment of withdrawn contributions in order to qualify for a newly-granted increment of 5% of the annual retirement

M.J. Garcia v. Tomorrows Hope, LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2016

(continued…) (e.g., governmental immunity under the act commonly referred to as the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa. … However, an allegation that a private entity receives government funding is insufficient to establish that the private entity acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §1983 liability.

Alessi v. Millcreek Township Zoning Hearing Board

814 A.2d 278 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2002

Alternatively, Sheetz requested an interpretation of the Ordinance to determine whether the proposed sale of motor fuels qualifies as a permitted use in the “B” Business district under section 407(22) of the Ordinance. … A straightforward reading of the Ordinance establishes that the answer to this question is no.