Case law

PPL Electric Utilities Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

912 A.2d 386 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2006

In order to qualify, the customer had to agree to increase production or physically expand the plant. … This Court agrees with the Commission that the tariff as approved was not ambiguous and clearly provided otherwise.

Blue Mountain Preservation Ass'n v. Township of Eldred

867 A.2d 692 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2005

We have reviewed Richardson’s testimony and find that he was properly qualified as an expert and that his testimony was unequivocal. … The existence of other nuisances must be established by testimony as in other cases....

Albert Einstein Med. Ctr. & J. Tran, M.D. v. MCARE Fund

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2023

It tests the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleadings and will be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. … immunity, none of which is applicable here.

Protect PT v. Penn Twp. ZHB v. Olympus Energy LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2019

Notably, the Zoning Ordinance established five unique zoning districts and four overlay districts in the Township. … The Resource District clearly provides for resource development.

Cunius v. Board of Assessment Appeals

976 A.2d 635 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2009

Clearly, the property has been divided and conveyed away in smaller parcels, making reassessment proper under the Assessment Law. … Further, real estate does not qualify as a condominium unless "the undivided interests in the common elements are vested in the unit owners.” 68 Pa.C.S. § 3103. 10 .

M. Ghaderi, D.O. v. State Board of Osteopathic Medicine

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2023

It also rejected the hearing examiner’s explanation that the General Assembly did not clearly intend Act 53’s prohibition to apply. Id. … Case law sometimes suggests that only “a vested right or an obligation under a contract” qualifies as a “substantive right” for retroactivity purposes. See, e.g., Keystone Coal, 673 A.2d at 421 n.6 (citing Creighan v.

Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Mahoning Township Supervisors

24 Pa. Commw. 207 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 1976

.) *210 The claimant here could qualify for workmen’s compensation benefits only if, at the time of his injury, he was: (1)- actually engaged as a fireman; or (2) performing other duties authorized by the Township. … The court said, however, that “by no extension of the well established principle that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to be liberally construed can it be said that such evidence constitutes 'authorization’ by the borough

Alessandro v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

972 A.2d 1245 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2009

He clearly made it known that he did not feel he should have to be burdened with taking an hour out of his life to testify in the proceedings. -Indeed, in referring to Claimant and the litigation, Mr. … It is arguable that die surveillance reports may qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule on their own.

L. Brown v. York County Prison (Medical Department)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2015

Unlike other litigants, pro se prisoners cannot personally travel to the courthouse to see that the notice is stamped “filed” or to establish the date on which the court received the … “[Pa.R.A.P.] 302(a) clearly states that issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Siegfried v. Borough of Wilson, 695 A.2d 892, 894 (Pa.

Kozak v. Hampton Township School District

655 A.2d 641 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1995

The IDEA establishes minimum requirements for the education of children with disabilities. … The record in this matter clearly evidences that' the hearing officer was presented with the issues of whether Gary has SED and whether SED qualifies Gary as an “exceptional student” when Kozak specifically objected to the

Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School v. PA Dept. of Ed. The Secretary of Ed., P.A. Rivera, (In his Official Capacity)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2020

An act providing scholarships and providing funds to secure [f]ederal funds for qualified students of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who need financial assistance to attend post[-] … “Ultimately, the grant or denial of a permanent injunction will turn on whether . . . the party seeking the injunction established a clear right to relief as a matter of law.” City of Phila. v.

L. Rodriguez v. L.R. Harry, Sec'y. of the PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2025

A demurrer can “be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” Id. Robinson v. Pa. … “[T]he purpose of mandamus is not to establish legal rights, but to enforce rights [that] are already established.” Clark v. Beard, 918 A.2d 155, 159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

Fassman v. SKROCKI

37 Pa. Commw. 302 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1978

Hampton Township, 437 Pa. 399 , 263 A.2d 385 (1970), the court reaffirmed the well-established principle that `Mandamus is an extraordinary writ which lies to compel the performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty … The court there went on to say that: `It must be noted that the mandamus provision of Section 909 is qualified by the phrase "where appropriate."

Commonwealth, Pennsylvania State Police v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

72 Pa. Commw. 520 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1983

This is our first case, then, wherein the Commission’s regulations are clearly applicable and wherein a handicap or disability has been determined to exist by reason of the language contained in those regulations. … Once she establishes those elements, the burden then shifts to the employer to show that the rejection of the complainant was not in violation of the Act. Id.

Stanish v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

11 A.3d 569 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2010

Therefore, he was not yet qualified to utilize the 6th edition when he examined Claimant roughly five weeks earlier. … When the Legislature amended the Act to establish the IRE system, however, it was obvious that the AMA Guides would change and that time might be needed to train and/or recertify IRE physicians on any newly published edition

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.

F. Boyd & D. Bradley v. PA's Sentencing Scheme for Sentencing 18 Year Old's to Mandatory Life w/o Parole A.G.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2024

Petitioners add that Miller and Montgomery do not preclude Pennsylvania from establishing its own standards to LWOP sentences, see Jones v. … Thus, [Boyd] cannot establish a timeliness exception on this basis. Boyd I, slip op. at 8-9.

Appeal of the Sewickley Valley YMCA

774 A.2d 1 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2001

The issue in this case is whether the YMCA qualifies as a “purely public charity” in order to be eligible for tax-exempt status for its real estate. … Clearly, the value of the YMCA’s uncompensated goods and services is at least 3% of its total operating expenses.

Common Cause of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth

668 A.2d 190 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1995

Here there was no change in the bill’s purpose after it left the Committee and that object was clearly stated in the new title. … We agree with the Governor, however, that if any of the named entities otherwise qualifies for money in any lawful fashion, our injunction does not preclude it from receiving those funds.

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.