Case law

Philadelphia Gas Works v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

671 A.2d 264 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1996

The test result evidence clearly indicates that the result was positive. Accordingly, we reverse. ORDER NOW, January 31, 1996, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated May 26,1995, at No. … Our statement in Chiles I that, if believed, Claimant’s testimony was substantial evidence has been interpreted too broadly by the Board and must be qualified.

L. Campbell, III v. California Univ. of PA and Dr. K. Hjerpe

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2018

Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief. … Therefore, in the context of sovereign immunity, it is immaterial that the University is not expressly authorized by statute to establish and maintain athletic programs, such as its football team.

E. Schock v. City of Lebanon

167 A.3d 861 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2017

Consequently, Objector asserts, if qualified objectors are not limited to properties to be assessed under the BIP plan, the objection process does not accurately measure the property owners’ consent to be assessed. … As to whether exempt property owners would be ‘affected’ by the BID, the answer is clearly yes.’

F.B. Harris v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 2017

In order to establish a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the programs … None of the conduct of the non- medical defendants in this action falls within any exception to immunity where sovereign immunity has been waived.

Ainjar Trust v. Department of Environmental Protection

806 A.2d 482 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2002

Clearly, Marcon holds only that the burden of production, not the burden of proof shifts; thus Concerned Residents misconstrued Marcon . … Of course, DER's interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference and should not be disregarded unless clearly erroneous. Mathies Coal Co. v.

McDonald Land & Mining Co. v. Department of Environmental Resources

664 A.2d 194 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 1995

connection, noting that: If the Department expects the Board to give serious consideration to the expert opinions presented by it, it would be well-advised to offer witnesses with adequate training and experience who are qualified … Section 4(a)H clearly distinguishes between SMCRA, including Section 4 thereof, and those laws, stating that a violation of the latter “shall not be deemed a violation of [SMCRA].”

Borough v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

692 A.2d 253 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1997

is defeated because a majority of employees fail to participate in an election of representatives as it would be to hold that the people of a municipality are without officers to represent them because a majority of the qualified … Moreover, I certainly do not believe that the “plain meaning” derived by the majority is so clearly supported by the language of Act 111 to justify ignoring the firmly-established principles of federal labor law when interpreting

Artisan Construction Group, LLC v. ZHB of Upper Pottsgrove Twp., Montgomery County, PA ~ Appeal of: Upper Pottsgrove Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2022

The Board denied an appeal from a determination of the Township zoning officer that a proposal for development of property owned by Artisan Construction Group, LLC (Artisan) did not meet the Township’s Age Qualified (AQ) … Clearly, the purpose of a Certificate of Mailing is to provide proof of timeliness by establishing the date that a document was submitted to the USPS for delivery. If Township had taken the Statement to a U.S.

J. Ramirez v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2021

Those who are categorically needy or medically needy under the standards of financial eligibility established by [the Department] are eligible for MA. … (3) Public health assistance for immunizations with respect to immunizable diseases and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases whether or not such symptoms are caused by a

S. Fayette Twp. v. PA DOT

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2022

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as provided in section 18 of Act 88 (relating to specific performance). … Though both statutes expressly reaffirm sovereign immunity, Act 88 does not contain any administrative remedial process whatsoever, nor does it establish an administrative body such as the Board of Claims with jurisdiction

West Chester Area School District v. Collegium Charter School

760 A.2d 452 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2000

Statutory Right The CSL itself clearly does not confer on Taxpayers the right to intervene in Collegium’s appeal before the CAB. … The court shall issue a decree establishing the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition.

Commonwealth v. Fox

16 Pa. Commw. 23 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1974

Section 705(2) of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 P.S. §1-705(2) (Supp. 1974-1975), however, authorizes a qualified valuation expert to testify on direct or cross-examination in detail as to the valuation of the property on a … The ordinance clearly creates a distinction between “service” and “availability for immediate use,” with “service” meaning “reasonable availability” in the sense that plans were being made by the Township to provide the facilities

Brown v. Montgomery County

918 A.2d 802 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2007

Brown believes that the Property is immune from taxation 2 by reason of the Contract Clause of the United States Con *804 stitution. U.S. Const., Art. … Whether Appellant Brown’s Complaint is clearly sufficient to establish a claim upon which relief can be granted. 4. Whether sanctions may be imposed against an unrepresented section 1983 litigant under Pa.

D. Best v. United Steel Paper & Forestry Rubber Mfg. Energy Allied Industrial & Service Workers Int'l. Union

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2023

(4) Violating any of the rules and regulations established by the board regulating the conduct of representation elections. … This clearly would be in violation of [ ] [PERA], which further places this case squarely within the purview of the [PLRB].

Country Place Waste Treatment Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

654 A.2d 72 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1995

no equipment, personnel, or expertise to determine whether or not an odor, or perceived odor, violates standards for air quality: Furthermore, the Complainants have no special expertise, nor did they adduce evidence by a qualified … witness, to establish that the odor they experienced was indeed offensive or a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. 6.

Mooney v. Commonwealth

101 Pa. Commw. 89 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1986

Under federal and state regulations, an overissuance is established in households which received larger allotments than they were intended to receive. 3 Ms. … Section 515.2, which defines “residents of institutions,” is clearly consistent with the federal regulations which states that persons shall be considered residents of institutions when the institution provides them with

Delchester Developers, L.P. v. London Grove Township Board of Supervisors

161 A.3d 1106 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2017

These tests shall follow the procedures for infiltration beds established by the Chester County Health Department. … The BOS repeatedly and clearly advised Delchester on how to cure the deficiencies in its Plan, both substantive and technical, as well as alerted Delchester to the information it needed from Delchester to proceed.

C.L. Johnson & J. Johnson, h/w v. Pocono Twp. ZHB & Pocono Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2024

Boardinghouses and bed-and-breakfast establishments are permitted as conditional uses in the R-2 District. … The Miller Court thus had to determine whether the individuals residing in the home together qualified as a “single housekeeping unit.” Id.

Central Bucks School District v. Central Bucks Education Ass'n

157 Pa. Commw. 100 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1993

[this Court] will not lightly substitute its judgment for that of a body selected for its expertise whose experience and expertise make it better qualified than a court of law to weigh facts within its field.’ … If, however, the agreement does not clearly permit or preclude grievance of the dispute, the provisions of the agreement must be interpreted to determine whether there is an agreement to arbitrate.

Citizens General Hospital v. Commonwealth

125 Pa. Commw. 358 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1989

the Medicaid program is presumptively valid under federal and state law, and the Commonwealth Court will not disturb DPW’s exercise of administrative discretion in the absence of fraud, bad faith, abuse of discretion or clearly … threshold increase necessary for construction cost reimbursement, the hospital is being penalized for its efficiency; i .e., had the hospital been less efficient its increase would have exceeded the threshold and it would have qualified