Case law

Shoats v. COM'R, PA. DEPT. OF CORR.

139 Pa. Commw. 607 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 1991

Access to the system, however, was qualified by another memorandum dated April 8, 1990 and addressed to the Regional Director of BOP (memorandum). … Shoats argues that the book paging system denies him his constitutional right of access to an adequate law library as established in Bounds v.

Firearm Owners Against Crime-Institute for Legislative and Legal Educational Action

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2025

selling, transferring, or otherwise disposing of a firearm without conducting a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check for every transfer of a firearm to a nonlicensee unless the transferee qualifies … The Township’s ordinance here is clearly intended to regulate the sale of firearms, rather than to regulate zoning. It is a gun regulation, not a zoning regulation.

Commonwealth, Office of Attorney General Ex Rel. Corbett v. Richmond Township

975 A.2d 607 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2009

Section 804.7 of the Ordinance establishes the conditions necessary to qualify for a special exception to engage in IAAs as follows: Intensive agricultural activities include, but are not limited to, mushroom farms, poultry … Rather, the General Assembly must clearly express its intent to preempt a field in which it legislated. Id.

Hooker v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

880 A.2d 70 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2005

The test to be applied when qualifying an expert witness is whether the witness has any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on the subject under investigation. … It is also well established that a witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on training and experience. Formal education on the subject matter of the testimony is not required. ...

Christ v. COM., DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE

911 A.2d 624 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2006

The title of HB 1168, as set forth before, clearly reflected the amended contents of the bill. … If the state plan is approved, the state will qualify for federal funding, which will cover part of the costs of the state's medical assistance program. . . .

D. Harris & S. Thompson v. SEPTA Police Det. D. Burgmann

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2023

I, § 11. 23 employees acting within the scope of their duties, shall continue to enjoy sovereign immunity and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the … It is well established that “SEPTA is a Commonwealth agency for purposes of sovereign immunity,” and that this sovereign immunity extends to intentional tort claims. Ioven v. Nestel, 150 A.3d 571, 573 (Pa.

Reeves v. Pennsylvania Game Commission

136 Pa. Commw. 667 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1990

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part: *673 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States; nor shall … A court may declare an Act of Assembly void, in whole or in part, when it clearly violates the Constitution. City of Pittsburgh v. The Pennsylvania Railroad, 394 Pa. 58 , 145 A.2d 700 (1958). .

County of Centre v. Pennsylvania State University

129 Pa. Commw. 184 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1989

Another basic presumption clearly established over the course of the Commonwealth’s history is that property owned by the sovereign, the Commonwealth, is not ordinarily subject to taxation. … We do not believe that the Board is empowered or particularly qualified to decide whether Penn State is a Commonwealth agency. Thus, we reject this contention.

Lehigh County v. Lehigh County Deputy Sheriffs' Assoc. (Emily Cordes HLA Grievance)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2023

The [Heart and Lung Act] mandates benefits “until the disability arising [from the qualifying injury] has ceased.” [Section 1 of the Heart and Lung Act,] 53 [P.S. §] 637[(1)(a)(12)]. … As this issue is clearly encompassed within the terms of the 4 2 Pa.

Buckeye Coal Co. v. Goddard

10 Pa. Commw. 15 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 1973

In sum, the record clearly establishes by scientific testing, by a vast preponderance of expert professional opinion, and by demonstrative evidence that, as the Federal Bureau’s inspector declares, “the roof bolts offer adequate … Stratascope readings in the record clearly support this finding.

Working Families Party v. Commonwealth of PA, Pedro A Cortes, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of PA

169 A.3d 1247 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2017

The write-in vote allows citizens to choose a candidate who does not have the support of the party establishment. … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Bloomsburg Industrial Ventures, LLC v. Town of Bloomsburg

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2020

The trial court clearly committed a typographical rather than an analytical error as the remainder of the opinion discusses Town Council’s resolutions denying BIV’s proposed curative amendments regarding transitional living … the legitimacy of the prohibition by evidence establishing what public interest is sought to be protected.

Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. v. Judge

758 A.2d 259 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2000

Respondent’s POs have not established that the law will bar recovery if Petitioner’s prove their allegations. … Thus, it qualifies as a true cooperative and is therefore not a public utility as a matter of law.” Pennsylvania Elec. Co., 354 Pa. at 476 , 47 A.2d at 812 . 15 .

B.C. Rodeheaver v. Bedford Pa. CCP

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2021

BACKGROUND In his Amended Petition, Rodeheaver avers that DOC illegally seized $2,500.28 that was paid to Rodeheaver from a retirement annuity plan pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)1 as a result … Clearly, Rodeheaver’s claims concerning due process are insufficient to satisfy this pleading standard.

HUMAN RELATIONS COM'N v. School Dist.

784 A.2d 266 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2001

He was so qualified by the Court. c. … The School District clearly is not precluded from otherwise creating ways to encourage parental involvement in these remaining schools.

PA. INDEP. INS. AGENTS v. Foster

150 Pa. Commw. 572 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1992

Department of Health, 131 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 469, 570 A.2d 1350 (1990), for the proposition that the grant of intervention in an administrative proceeding is not a basis for establishing standing on appeal. … The agreement clearly states that it is not contrary to law. [5] The United States Code definition of "bank holding company" is found at 12 U.S.C. § 1841 .

Jannetta v. Knoll

129 Pa. Commw. 458 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 1989

"To have standing, one must plead facts which establish a direct, immediate and substantial injury." Paratransit Association of Delaware Valley, Inc. v. Yerusalim, 114 Pa. … Clearly the possibility of a suit sometime in the future is not a claim appropriate for declaratory relief.

Melmark Home v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Rosenberg)

946 A.2d 159 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2008

More evidence and findings are needed to establish when each Notice of Ability to Return to Work was issued and whether Claimant or her counsel received this notice. … Therefore, such notice qualifies as "prompt written notice."

Bethea-Tumani v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs

993 A.2d 921 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2010

The Board counters that its adjudication was based upon substantial and relevant evidence that Applicant is not qualified for licensure based on her criminal history of pleading guilty to aggravated assault, insurance fraud … The findings were essentially limited to the following: (1) the information submitted establishes that petitioners seek to transfer a portion of the district; (2) the “information submitted does not establish that the school

Berks Products Corp. v. Arch Insurance Co.

72 A.3d 315 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2013

Accordingly, a surety that intends to avoid liability should include an express provision in the bond establishing the same. Pennsylvania Supply Company v. … necessary payments to its subcontractor. 8 Similarly, in the present case, Berks was excluded from seeking redress under the Mechanics’ Lien Law of 1963 inasmuch as the current project was a public project and, therefore, immune