Case law

Firetree, Ltd. v. Department of General Services

978 A.2d 1067 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2009

In new matter, the Department asserted several affirmative defenses to Firetree’s claims including, inter alia, the Statute of Frauds and sovereign immunity. … At best, the party with an oral agreement will establish a tenancy at will.

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.

Braxton v. Com., Dept. of Transp.

160 Pa. Commw. 32 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1993

The object of these regulations is to establish uniform controls governing such location, design, construction and maintenance. … Rubin’s employment in the field of real estate does not qualify him as a highway safety engineer, and so for our purposes, he is a lay person.

Mihok v. Department of Public Welfare

670 A.2d 227 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1996

In this ease, it was clearly within the province of the hearing officer to evaluate the testimony of Dr. … . *232 In order for a claimant to qualify for reinstatement of benefits after those benefits have been terminated, a claimant has the burden of establishing a causal connection between her current condition and the prior

In re Tax Claim Bureau of Schuylkill County Sale of September 29, 2000

798 A.2d 845 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2002

The trial court concluded, based on precedent, that all owners of fractional interests in a parcel qualify as “owners” of the property for tax sale notice purposes and must be given statutory notice of a sale of any interest … Objectors alleged that the sale was invalid because the Bureau refused to accept payments offered by Objectors, that the description of the property was inadequate, that the upset prices were not properly established, and

Community Country Day School v. Commonwealth

51 Pa. Commw. 286 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 1980

In the event of staff turnover, in no instance shall staff be hired that are not qualified as prescribed for approved private schools; 3. … Although administrative agencies may, in some instances, promulgate regulations that apply retroactively, the intent to do so must appear clearly and unequivocally on tha face of the regulations. *295 Romig Unemployment Compensation

Platts v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Bradford Woods

654 A.2d 149 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1995

Section 302.2 defines home occupation and includes the conditions under which a home *151 occupation qualifies as a permitted accessory use. … Section 302.2 states: 302.2 HOME OCCUPATIONS: The pursuit of vocational or avocational interests by a resident shall be deemed an accessory use to a dwelling, provided: (a) Such activity is clearly subordinate to the dwelling

Filippi v. Kwitowski

880 A.2d 711 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2005

Controller, in his Preliminary Objections, argued, inter alia, that Mayor failed to plead a duty, clearly established by law, compelling him to authorize salary payments upon demand, regardless of their legality. … To determine whether the Charter Law supersedes the City Code, we must look to Section 301 of the Charter Law which, in its entirety, reads: Upon the adoption by the qualified voters of any city of any of the optional plans

Adoption Arc, Inc. v. Department of Public Welfare

727 A.2d 1209 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 1999

The Hearing Examiner determined that the children essentially qualify for assistance in every respect under the state regulations, except that ARC did not prove that “reasonable efforts” were made first to locate adopting … According to a PIQ issued in 1992, the intent of Congress, with respect to 42 U.S.C. § 673 (c)(2)(B) is as follows: It was the intent of Congress, with the establishment of the adoption assistance program, to increase significantly

Downs Racing, LP v. Commonwealth of PA

143 A.3d 511 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2016

As written, the regulation clearly contemplates that the taxpayer is performing the printing services and not an outside contractor. … Clearly, a license to use tangible personal property is subject to tax.

City Council v. City of Pittsburgh

155 Pa. Commw. 328 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1993

The individual residents of the neighborhoods affected by the fire stations clearly have standing to question the city’s building projects. … Nor did the city establish that it was prejudiced by council’s delay in failing to institute its action.

Hertz Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

724 A.2d 395 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1999

More than mere voluntary assumption of financial support is necessary to establish in loco parentis status. Id. … The record further establishes that Claimant’s father has never provided any support of Claimant and has little or no contact with him.

Fair Acres Geriatric Center v. Commonwealth

107 Pa. Commw. 293 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1987

Radke qualified the above statement by explaining: “Unfortunately, for the facility, our regulations do not allow a facility to make the choice to unilaterally use the exclusion method. … Therefore, Petitioners have failed to establish the first element. Additionally, even assuming Petitioners were misled by Johnsons letter, they have foiled to establish reasonable reliance on that letter.

In Re Appeal of Jubilee Ministries International

2 A.3d 706 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2010

Finally, the Board argues that nothing in the statute requires it to establish the effective date retroactive to the date of purchase of a property. … A property either qualifies for tax exempt status or it does not.

McAfee v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

134 Pa. Commw. 562 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 1990

Section 101.54 of these Rules, 4 Pa.Code § 101.54, allows for the reinstatement of a former regular status employee to a position in the same or comparable class from which he resigned as long as the employee is still qualified … Accordingly, the burden then shifted to Employer to establish that work was available to Claimant which Claimant was capable of performing.

Murray v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

745 A.2d 66 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2000

We recognize that a qualified valuation expert may testify to any and all facts underlying his or her opinion on fair market value. See Section 705(1), 26 P.S. § 1-705(1). … If the retail liquor establishment had no liquor license, it would be worth one figure; if it had a license, it would be worth more.

Mount Vernon Cemetery Co. v. Pennsylvania Department of State

55 A.3d 1274 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2012

BPOA alleged that Petitioner qualified as a “cemetery company” under both the Real Estate Act and Burial Grounds Act. … The statutes clearly define “cemetery company” as a “person who offers or sells to the public ... any cemetery lot.”

Lancaster County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

35 A.3d 83 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2012

This would clearly be legislative enactment, and would conflict with Franklin County’s expressed concern over taxation without representation. … 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.”

EQT Production Company and ET Blue Grass Clearing, LLC v. Borough of Jefferson Hills

162 A.3d 554 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2017

But this case is clearly distinguishable from JoJo Oil Company, Inc. Objectors’ evidence in this case is of a different pedigree altogether. … At common law, witnesses not qualifying as experts were generally permitted to testify regarding those things that they had seen, heard, felt, tasted, smelled, or done.”) ’ (citation and internal brackets and quotations omitted

Armstead v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

115 A.3d 390 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2015

For an interest to qualify as “substantial, there must be some discernible effect on some interest other than the abstract interest all citizens have in the outcome of [the] proceedings.” … Unlike those cases, where our courts created an exception to allow taxpayer standing, our General Assembly has clearly precluded the possibility of taxpayer appeals from ZBA decisions in Philadelphia.