Case law

Pennsylvania Bankers Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Department of Banking

981 A.2d 975 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2009

The NCUA promulgated rules setting forth the requirements for establishing a “well-defined local community” as follows: the geographic area’s boundaries must be clearly defined; the charter applicant must show the area is … See Koppenhaver (in proceeding under Debt Act, 13 Department of Community and Economic Development not proper forum to consider issues relating to immunity from real estate tax).

Carroll Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industry

690 A.2d 821 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1997

Thus, the Presiding Officer clearly erred in shifting the burden of proof to Employer in this case. .The Statement of Beliefs includes the following: We believe that it is necessary for every true Christian to trust God alone … Defendant’s Exh. 3.) .The Presiding Officer concluded that, in addition to the requirements of section 304.2(c), the Church must guarantee financial assistance to its dependent members in order to qualify for the religious

T.L. Fegley, as of the Estate of P. Sheetz v. Firestone Tire & Rubber (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2023

to continually establish that medical treatment of that compensable injury is causally related because the injury for which the claimant is treating has already been established … Nuclear Insurers, 131 A.3d 445, 449 (Pa. 2015) (citing a trial court order “providing that Insurer shall reimburse Insureds if the Insureds establish that the settlement was ‘fair and reasonable’ unless Insurer establishes

C. Choe v. From the Decision of the Philadelphia Bd. of Rev. of Taxes

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2021

as deteriorated. 17 Thus, Developer would not have qualified for a tax abatement under Philadelphia Code § 19-1303.2. … employee ever indicated to Developer that the existing abatement would be transferred, and that nowhere in BRT’s December 8, 2005 letters did BRT indicate that the term of the abatement would be 8 years rather than 10 years—clearly

Penn Street, L.P. v. East Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board

84 A.3d 1114 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2014

“Spot zoning must be clearly established; if the validity of the rezoning ordinance is debatable, it must be permitted to stand.” Id. … “The need to preserve an agricultural tract as large as 132 1/2 acres, and the detriment to agriculture to be incurred by allowance of further subdivisions, are not so clearly established as to necessitate the zoning restrictions

M.A. Carr v. Twp. of Falls and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 542

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2023

As an Operator Class 2, Employee had a commercial driver’s license (CDL) and was qualified to operate one or more trucks, motor vehicles, and yard and heavy equipment. … which the record clearly

Afscme v. Plrb

100 Pa. Commw. 50 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 1986

In addition, we recognize that "the PLRB, by virtue of its experience and expertise, is better qualified than the courts to address the complexities of disputes of this nature and therefore, the courts should not lightly … personnel problems such as excessive absenteeism because of alleged illness or injury, and the examinations might lead to recommendations respecting the employees' future work assignments, there is insufficient evidence establishing

Com. of PA, OAG v. The Baroness Consulting & Mediation, LLC & J. Von Schmeling

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 2025

First, these documents would not, on their face, qualify as “mediation documents” at all unless they were “prepared for the purpose of, in the course of[,] or pursuant to[,] mediation.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5949(c). … Thus, because Appellants did not carry their burden to establish the applicability of the Mediation Privilege to all of these documents and because, in any event, the Commonwealth established the applicability of an exception

S. Hufnagle v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2025

In light of the totality 9 of the circumstances, the evidence clearly demonstrates Officer Yoas had reasonable grounds to believe Licensee operated her vehicle while under the … Supreme Court] cases establish that the taking of a blood sample or the administration of a breath test is a search.”

Chester Upland School District v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

150 A.3d 143 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2016

Managerial Prerogative An administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute within its own area of expertise must be given controlling weight unless it is clearly erroneous. Lancaster Cnty. v. Pa. … Appreciating the competence and knowledge an agency possesses in its relevant field, an appellate court will not lightly substitute its judgment for that of a body whose expertise makes it better qualified than a court of

In Re: Appeals of A.K. Jerrehian, Jr. From the Decision Dated December 9, 2014 of the ZHB of The Twp. of Lower Merion

155 A.3d 674 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2017

Further, the easement establishing the driveway did not state that utilities could be placed in the driveway. … “It is well established that mere common ownership of [] adjoining lots does not automatically establish a physical merger of those lots for the purpose 18 of determining whether

West Mifflin Area SD v. Pedro A. Rivera, Secretary of Education

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2017

However, this Court has recognized limited exceptions to this rule: First, a party may raise the affirmative defense of immunity as a preliminary objection where it is clearly applicable on the … In this case, the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity is not clearly applicable from the face of the Petition.

C. Fisher v. C. Kennedy

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2025

A review of the evidence clearly establishes that Norwood Borough was the entity involved here. … As the Bissey court observed: Specific facts must be raised in order to establish undue hardship.

Westinghouse Electric Corp. (R & D Center) v. Board of Property Assessment

138 Pa. Commw. 30 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1991

Our limited scope of review is only to reverse the trial court when parties have shown it to have been ‘clearly in error.’ ” In his oral adjudication from the bench, the trial court found that the witnesses on valuation were … all qualified as experts, despite the fact that there were some questions about the nature of their qualifications, including the fact that they may not have been licensed appraisers in Pennsylvania.

Graham Packaging Co. v. Commonwealth

882 A.2d 1076 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2005

"Canned software” has been defined by the Department of Revenue as: “Computer software that does not qualify as custom software.” 61 Pa.Code § 60.19(b). … Moreover, it is well-established that a properly promulgated regulation has the force of law while a statement of policy does not. Id. . See footnote 1, supra. .

Board of Education v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees

66 Pa. Commw. 346 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1982

Of these, forty-seven were not able to pass a required qualifying examination. … Division 85, Amalgamated Transit Union, 492 Pa. 494 , 424 A.2d 1299 (1981). 2 The ration *353 ale for this limitation on judicial inquiry has been clearly articulated by the United States Supreme Court: It is the arbitrator

A. P. Weaver & Sons v. Sanitary Water Board

3 Pa. Commw. 499 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1971

Appellant further avers that certain of the Board’s witnesses were not qualified to testify and that much of what they said, and often the exhibits about which they testified, was hearsay. … Stinard, 68 Dauph. 26, 27 (1955), 4 which said, “The essential facts should be established by legally competent evidence and witnesses should be subject to cross-examination.

COM. DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE v. Joyce

128 Pa. Commw. 341 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 1989

At least with respect to URESA cases, the statutory provision clearly states that the court "shall not" require payment of "either a filing fee or other costs." … The fee schedule for the prothonotary of the court of common pleas of a county of the second class establishes that fees for filings relating to the entry of judgment and the issuance of a writ of execution are required and

D'Alessandro v. Pennsylvania State Police

878 A.2d 133 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2005

On appeal, Petitioner argues that the AALJ erred by denying his request for relief because: 1) his conviction of simple assault does not qualify as a state misdemeanor of domestic violence because he was not related to the … 6102 of the Protection From Abuse Act provides, in relevant part, that: (a) General rule. — The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly

B.E. Griffin v. M. Thompson & Prison Medical Dept.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2026

Id. 7 Pursuant to what is commonly known as the Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8501- 8528, a “Commonwealth party” is a “Commonwealth agency and any employee thereof, but only with respect to an act within … Stein’s letter suffers from similar defects as the prior two statements and quite clearly fails to substantially comply with Rule 1042.3. Dr.