Case law

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.

School District v. Hamot Medical Center

144 Pa. Commw. 668 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1992

We do not see how this establishes the type of open admissions policy that existed in West Allegheny. … that Hamot did meet the fourth prong of the Hospital Utilization Project test because it did relieve the government of some of its burden. 7 But, as to the fifth prong of the Hospital Utilization Project test, the court clearly

1198 Butler Street Associates v. Board of Assessment Appeals

946 A.2d 1131 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2008

In support, Taxing Authority directs our attention to the trial court’s conclusion: [Taxpayers] have clearly carried the burden of proof under [Green]. … Thus, her analysis is clearly wrong. To ignore these mandates is a failure that effectively provides a distorted valuation for tax purposes relating to all of these properties.

DOT v. A & R Dev. Co.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2020

Because A & R cannot meet its burden, the Department is not required to establish that it was prejudiced by the delay. … It is well established that sovereign immunity is the law in Pennsylvania and is grounded in article 1, section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. E–Z Parks, Inc. v. Phila. Parking Auth., 532 A.2d 1272, 1276 (Pa.

Bankers Bond & Mortgage Co. v. School District

67 Pa. Commw. 107 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 1982

.® Responsibility for collection of the general business tax is clearly set forth in the statute. … established the position of collector as one which is within the structure of the school district rather than that of the City, and it has specifically entrusted the school district collector with responsibility not only

Schwartz v. Consumers Education & Protective Ass'n

58 Pa. Commw. 444 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1981

The Act of 1927 clearly and concisely prohibits any post-election increases for the City’s elected officials. … Clearly, the Court concluded these statutes were capable of being read together without conflict.

Rana v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

170 A.3d 1279 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2017

A claimant qualifies for the special assignment exception when acting in accordance with responsibilities as an “on call” employee. See City of Philadelphia v. … (R.R. at 23a.) 9  Clearly, Employer expected Decedent to travel to the Hatfield location and investigate any operational issues.

R.L. Holbrook v. Com. of PA Wolf

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2021

not a Commonwealth agency, still enjoys absolute immunity pursuant to 1 Pa. … and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.

Kossman v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

694 A.2d 1147 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 1997

that Duquesne “reserves the right to make a reasonable charge including the related income tax, payable in advance, for service lines and for equipment installed for the exclusive use of a customer which exceed Company established … Clearly, the Commission, in Re Contributions, has permitted Du-quesne to continue to use method number 5. *1155 Therefore, the Commission correctly applied that decision to the instant case.

In Re PP&L, Inc.

838 A.2d 1 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2003

PP & L argues that the Philadelphia Parties do not qualify for intervention as of right. … Clearly, pursuant to the statutes and interpretive cases the deductions taken for obsolescence here were permitted by law.

B. Leibensperger v. Carpenter Technologies, Inc. t/a Carpenter Technology Corp.

152 A.3d 1066 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2016

Under McDonnell Douglas: the complainant bears the burden of establishing a [prima facie] case by showing that: (i) he is in a protected class; (ii) he is qualified for the position; (iii) he suffered an adverse employment … The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has summarized our standard of review as follows: Summary judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and

Mayo v. SCI Greene's Administered Staff

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 2020

Items 28 at 4, 31 at 4, that was not clearly communicated in the document he filed in the trial court. … and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.’ 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310.

GPU Industrial Intervenors v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

156 Pa. Commw. 626 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1993

The effect of such a decree was clearly stated in Commonwealth v. … On this point the PUC’s order was clearly interlocutory.

Al Hamilton Contracting Co. v. Department of Environmental Resources

659 A.2d 31 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 1995

Before the EHB, DER called Barnes to testify, qualifying him as an expert witness. He testified as to the results of the water analysis and the other facts he relied on in his investigation. … We stated: The Board concluded that “[t]he facts clearly support the probability that appellant’s activities have in some yet unknown way, contributed to the water problem.”

K. Hoot & N. Hoot v. American Driveline Systems, Inc., AAMCO Transmissions, Inc.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2021

The Trial Court explained that “Alter and Bradley clearly demonstrate[ that] th[e Trial C]ourt was under no obligation to rule on the [Hoots’] demurrers [seeking dismissal on immunity grounds] before transfer and [that] th … However, whether Hatfield and DOT are immune from liability under the Driveway Immunity Provision is immaterial to the question of venue, which, when properly objected to, must be decided in the first instance.

G.A. and D.D. Sandusky v. PA State Employees' Retirement Board

127 A.3d 34 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2015

Because we find that nothing in the record in any way establishes that Mr. Sandusky 1 Act of July 8, 1978, P.L. 752, 43 P.S. §§1311–1315. … Indeed, the record established that the payment was provided to him only pursuant to the Retirement Perquisites Agreement and not as part of his “regular professional salary.”

M.A. Sangston v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2024

While the former clearly constitutes willful misconduct, the latter does not. Claimant gave timely written notice of his religious exemption request. … Because Employer failed to establish that Claimant’s non-use of the Form constituted a conscious wrongdoing, it failed to prove Claimant’s willful misconduct.

Piecknick v. South Strabane Township Zoning Hearing Board

147 Pa. Commw. 308 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1992

And, the decision was clearly reached after due deliberation by the entire Board at that meeting. … line____ *320 Section 6.6 of the Ordinance establishes the front setback for R-2 zones at 40 feet.

City of Philadelphia v. Lindley Tower Realty Co., L.P. ~ Appeal of: Lindley Tower Realty Co., L.P.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2024

During cross-examination it was established that Mr. … While this Court agrees that he qualifies as an expert in Code inspection, the City has not provided further explanation why Mr.

Pennsylvania State Building & Construction Trades Council v. Commonwealth, Prevailing Wage Appeals Board

722 A.2d 1139 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1999

The majority recognizes the well-established principle that: An interpretation by the agency charged with a statute's implementation is accorded great weight and will be overturned only if such a construction is clearly erroneous … I certainly cannot characterize the Secretary's view as clearly erroneous.