Case law

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.

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.

B. Sherwood v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2020

Immunity All Respondents argue that Sherwood’s negligence claims are barred by either sovereign immunity or governmental immunity. … objection if the defense is clearly applicable on the face of the [petition for review].”

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

Pittsburgh Press Employment Advertising Discrimination Appeal

4 Pa. Commw. 448 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 1972

Clearly, the factual findings of the Commission, standing alone, do not support the conclusion reached. … Can we not say that another “necessary implication” is that an employer is seeking to reach the greatest number of qualified applicants by his action?

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

White Advertising Metro, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board

70 Pa. Commw. 308 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1982

In addition, White pointed out that signs serve everyone who is informed by them and could easily be used to advertise local business establishments. … All signs not owned by the person, firm or organization advertising thereon shall carry a clearly legible imprint showing the owner’s name.

Honey Brook Estates, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of Honey Brook Township

132 A.3d 611 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2016

The response letter indicates a contractual agreement has been entered into with a qualified traffic consultant. … In the amended preliminary plan, Developer included its contract with a qualified traffic consultant as well as a copy of the consultant’s letter identifying the areas to be studied.

McGinley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

90 A.3d 83 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2014

Here, McGinley’s Petition clearly sets forth the facts which lead to his incarceration, the process and details of his parole evaluations, and the purpose of his appeal. … Mandamus is not available to establish legal rights, but is appropriate only to enforce rights that have been established.

Denaples v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board

178 A.3d 262 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2018

The BIE established by Section 1517(a) of the Gaming Act, 4 Pa. C.S. §1517(a), investigates applications for licenses, permits, registrations and violations of the Gaming Act. … As such, the Board’s order is controlling unless clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the Board’s regulations or the Gaming Act. Id.

Filice v. Department of Labor & Industry

155 Pa. Commw. 347 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1993

The score remains valid through January 1994 and qualifies Filice for placement on the list of persons eligible for promotion. … However, Filice asserts that he has set forth sufficient facts to establish a discrimination claim.

Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC v. Greene County Board of Assessment Appeals

837 A.2d 665 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2004

the value of such mill, mine, manufacto-ry or industrial establishment. … Thus, the items qualify for the machinery and equipment exclusion and are not taxable.

Selfspot, Inc. v. Butler County Family Ymca

987 A.2d 206 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2010

The bar is not artificially raised to reduce the number of applicants qualifying for assistance. … Quite to the contrary, the record clearly established that the Butler Y’s primary objective was charitable and provided a beneficial service to the community, not to make a profit.

McCarron v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

761 A.2d 668 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2000

The Board determined that Claimant did not carry his burden of proof based on the conclusion that increased volume and complexity of work does not qualify as an abnormal working condition necessary to support an award in … Clearly, the District Attorney’s office may structure the work assignments of its detectives as it deems necessary with each of the detectives equally subject to a change in volume or nature of their assignments.

O'Connor v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

136 Pa. Commw. 119 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1990

PECO presented the expert testimony of two qualified electrical engineers who testified about the need for a substation in the general area because of increased demand. … It was also established that he did not have an electrical engineering degree that he claimed to have.

M. Cook v. City of Philadelphia CSC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2021

These cases establish that there is a property interest in fair access to public employment. … It is well established that “[w]hen an agency’s decision or refusal to act leaves a complainant with no other forum in which to assert his or her rights, privileges or immunities, the agency’s act is an adjudication.”

Arocho v. County of Lehigh

922 A.2d 1010 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 2007

the constitutional mi-nima; rather, they establish goals recommended by the organization in question.” … Therefore, under the first prong of Kirby , the Estate failed to establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

MARSTON v. KLINE

8 Pa. Commw. 143 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1973

Marston, Carmen Quanti and Robert Becker, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other qualified electors of the Second Senatorial District of Pennsylvania similarly situated, as a class (plaintiffs). … Commonwealth Ct. 356 (1971), held that a complaint may be dismissed by the court on preliminary objections if laches clearly appears in the petition or complaint.

Aiello v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

687 A.2d 399 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1996

It is well established that the admission of expert testimony is a matter of discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless there was a clear abuse of discretion. Kubit v. Russ, 287 Pa. … to limit the spread of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). 35 P.S. § 7602.

Kohl v. New Sewickley Township Zoning Hearing Board

108 A.3d 961 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2015

because [a township’s zoning officer] is charged with the administration and execution of the [ordinance], his interpretation of the *969 ordinance is entitled to deference and should not be disregarded unless shown to be clearly … Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Portland, 910 A.2d 756 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), we concluded that a landowner did not qualify for a special exception as a “home occupation” where she sought to breed her dogs.