Case law

Messerschmidt v. Pennsylvania State Police

782 A.2d 1097 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2001

While Petitioners deny that the evidence demonstrates that they were arrested or charged with larceny, the fingerprint cards clearly state that Petitioners were arrested. … Second, Lanza and Crawford did not establish, as a matter of law, the minimum quantum of evidence needed by PSP to support its criminal records.

Goslin v. State Board of Medicine

949 A.2d 372 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2008

Section 35 of the 1985 Act clearly governs the Board's issuance of nurse-midwife licenses to licensed registered nurses. … The record establishes that Goslin engaged in very specific medical practices and protocols and that she was not licensed to do so as a physician as required by Section 10 of the Act.

Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

868 A.2d 606 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2005

The PUC clearly may not establish rates which are calculated to retroactively recover surpluses or refund deficits created by inaccuracies in its prior rate authorizations. Pike County Light and Pwr. Co. v. … In PPL I, we discussed the extraordinary expenses that qualified as an exception to the prohibition against retroactive ratemaking.

Hill v. PA. BUR. OF CORR.

124 Pa. Commw. 172 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1989

At trial the court directed a verdict against the minor plaintiff on a theory of parental immunity later acknowledged to have been erroneous. The jury awarded the mother a very low amount. … In our considered judgment, we conclude that this is such a case. *183 We emphasize that we do not establish any particular ratio of pain and suffering damages to special damages or any particular dollar figure as automatically

Fulmer v. White Oak Borough

146 Pa. Commw. 473 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1992

It also asserted in new matter that it was protected by governmental immunity and that the Fulmers’ cause of action, if any, would be under the Eminent Domain Code (Code). 2 The Borough then filed its motions for summary … The plaintiff initially petitioned for a board of viewers, and later tried to introduce testimony seeking to establish a tort claim.

Kielbowick v. Ambridge Area School Board

668 A.2d 1228 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1995

Marteslo, 423 A.2d 1336, 1338 (Pa.Cmwlth.1980), this Court reaffirmed that “the position of substitute is clearly temporary .in nature and the duration of the position is measured by the length of the absence of the regular … Additionally, he argues that there is no authority establishing that a negotiated contract between a school district and its teachers has priority over legislative enactments and judicial adjudications.

Philadelphia Entertainment & Development Partners, L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board

34 A.3d 261 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2011

Section 1313 of the Gaming Act, which is clearly applicable to slot machine applicants, provides in pertinent part: *269 (a) Applicant financial information.— The board shall require each applicant for a slot machine license … As PEDP has argued repeatedly, it clearly has the ability to attract potential financial backing. Originally, it obtained financing from Fox-woods, and subsequently it obtained financing from Wynn.

Aiken v. Radnor Township Board of Supervisors

83 Pa. Commw. 190 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1984

Bear in ink the signatures, addresses, Ward, and dates of signing of at least ten (10) percent of the registered electors of each Ward of the 'Township qualified to vote at the time of the most recent primary, municipal or … The reporting and publishing of the adopted ordinance is clearly a ministerial act on the part of the Commissioners.

Pittsburgh Miracle Mile Town & Country Shopping Center, Inc., Tax Appeals

6 Pa. Commw. 187 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 1972

Richman’s ratios thus established and its action in this regard was affirmed in the cases cited. In the F. W. Woolworth Co. … These conclusions are clearly supported in the evidence. After thus determining the values for the 34.519-acre property, the court was required to make an adjustment for the separately assessed 4.17 acres.

L. Krasner, in his official capacity as the D.A. of Philadelphia v. M.A. Henry, in her official capacity as A.G. of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2024

has the power of eminent domain, [see] id. § 1741(a)(13); and (3) SEPTA is immune from state taxation. … Such interest is clearly affected by Act 40. The causal connection is also clear.

Commonwealth, Department of Health v. Hanes

78 A.3d 676 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2013

Thus, the powers granted under Section 2777 to Hanes as the Clerk of the Orphans’ Court: [ a]re clearly ministerial in nature. … See, e.g., Barge, 39 A.3d at 545 (“The purpose of mandamus is not to establish *693 legal rights, but to enforce those rights already established beyond peradventure.”)

C. Hitner v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2023

POs testing the legal sufficiency of a pleading will be sustained only where the pleading clearly fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Id. … In these situations, sovereign immunity is waived for damages arising out of a negligent act where the common law or a statute would permit recovery if the injury was caused by a person not protected by sovereign immunity

Barrett v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

987 A.2d 1280 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2010

Bonner could not establish a rating for Claimant’s neck because there was no objective evidence of a neck problem. We conclude that the IRE was valid. … . § 511.2, states that the level of impairment is to be established using the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. Dr.

Roman v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

163 Pa. Commw. 307 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1994

Section 301(c)(2) of the Act provides, in pertinent part: The terms ‘injury,’ ‘personal injury,’ and ‘injury arising in the course of his employment,’ as used in this act, shall include, unless the context clearly requires … Roman did not qualify for benefits pursuant to the Disease Act, because Roman did not become disabled within four years after the last date of his employment with Rohm & Haas. Although Mrs.

In re Appeal of German

27 Pa. Commw. 108 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1976

German’s appeal petitions, the respondents’ answers and the records certified to us by the Department of Community Affairs on German’s appeal from its order approving the lease rental agreement establish the following facts … Our Supreme Court has clearly held that this constitutional provision applies only to transactions with purely private enterprises. Rettig v. Board of County Commissioners, 425 Pa. 274 , 228 A.2d 747 (1967); Belovsky v.

D v. Jordan v. M.D. Overmyer

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2018

Appellant was clearly advised that he exceeded DOC’s limit, yet he took no steps to preserve his legal materials in compliance with DOC’s policies. … Generally, Commonwealth employees acting within the scope of their duties are immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 1 Pa. C.S. § 2310.

Commonwealth ex rel. Corbett v. Desiderio

698 A.2d 134 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1997

The test is whether it is clear from all of the facts pleaded that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish his or her right to relief. Firing v. … While the quo warranto action brought by the electors of the Municipality of Clairton sought to remove Desiderio from public office, that action was clearly dismissed based on a lack of standing.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Comwlth. of PA

206 A.3d 51 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2019

. § 1921 (legislatively established standards for judicial interpretation of statutes). 4  The UTPCPL The Legislature sought … Chesapeake requests that we “take judicial notice of the Attorney General’s admissions in the [d]raft [p]roposed [r]ulemaking that the UTPCPL does not ‘clearly’ or ‘plainly’ authorize claims against buyers like Chesapeake

McKeesport Area School District v. Propel Charter School McKeesport

888 A.2d 912 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2005

Specifically, Propel submitted the names, addresses and grades of 168 pre-enrollment applicants for the proposed charter school, which clearly evidences the level of support in the aggregate as required by the CSL.” Id. … Such hearings, suspension, or expulsion may be delegated to a duly authorized committee of the board, or to a duly qualified hearing examiner, who need not be a member of the board, but whose adjudication must be approved

D. Davis Javitz v. Luzerne County

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2025

Analysis14 A motion for “[s]ummary judgment is properly granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact as to a necessary element of a cause of action and the moving party has clearly established … In Golaschevsky, the Supreme Court explained that a report concerning the wrongdoing of a “co-employee” may qualify for whistleblower protection.