Case law

J.L. Camacho v. West Chester Area SD

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2017

Grieff is clearly concerned with the maintenance of the real property itself. … systems 4  under the care, custody or control of the local agency, except that the claimant to recover must establish that the dangerous

Lindemuth v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

134 A.3d 111 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2016

Here, Claimant does not seek to establish that he suffers from a trigeminal nerve injury; that fact was already established in 2009. … The WCJ’s evidentiary findings are not, however, immune from review.

City & County of Philadelphia Ex Rel. Philadelphia Department of Human Services v. Department of Public Welfare

941 A.2d 766 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2008

Code § 3140.17 (e) is in any way inconsistent with the Public Welfare Code, it is because it gives counties more rights, not *772 fewer, 9 than those established in the Public Welfare Code. … The Administrative Agency Law defines an “adjudication” as follows: Any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities

E.M. v. DHS J.K. v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2018

[Mother] qualifies as a ‘perpetrator’ as defined as she is the biological mother of [Child]. … Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the evidence “clearly supports that [Child] was physically abused.” Id.

R.D. Beaver v. J. Wetzel, Sec'y, PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2019

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. … Finally, DOC argues that Beaver’s Amended Petition should be dismissed because he fails to establish a clear right to relief.

Kolva v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing

977 A.2d 1248 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2009

Because there was no conviction, Kolva's commercial driving privileges therefore were not subject to a suspension under Section 1611(a)(1). [2] DOT argues before the Court that Kolva's acceptance of ARD clearly met the definition … Absent a licensee establishing that he was misinformed of the terms of the program, once a licensee accepts ARD, even if the licensee later withdraws, he is still convicted as that term is defined by Section 1603 of the Vehicle

M. Rivera v. T. Silbaugh

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2020

Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … “Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, . . . including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” O’Lone v.

In Re: 3401 Sky Properties, LLC ~ From Decisions of: City of Philadelphia ZBA ~ Appeal of: 3401 Sky Properties, LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2024

It therefore did not establish hardship, the primary criterion for grant of [the] variance[s]. 7. … At the ZBA meeting, Counsel described: My client also insisted that they would follow all laws and rent to whoever is a qualified candidate regardless of their race, and I asked

Corman v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

93 A.3d 1 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2014

The law is well-established that “legislation will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution, with any doubts being resolved in favor of constitutionality.” … These 33 post-secondary educational institutions qualify as “[i]nstitution[s] of higher education” under the Endowment Act. 24 P.S. § 7502.

Chester Upland S.D. v. M. Rossi, in the official capacity as the Prothy. of the CCP of Beaver Cty., PA - 133 M.D. 2021

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2022

In their fourth PO, Respondents argue that Petitioners’ claims are barred by the doctrines of sovereign, governmental, and quasi- judicial immunity. … satisfy the following test: [O]ne . . . must show a direct and substantial interest and a sufficiently close causal connection between the challenged action and the asserted injury to qualify

W. Mayo v. J. Doe

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2024

Cmwlth., No. 1192 C.D. 2018, filed May 13, 2020), which was deemed barred pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Here, Sorber identified Haines, Cowden and SCI Greene’s as prior prison conditions litigation qualifying as Mayo’s “three strikes.”

Pennsylvania State Troopers' Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

671 A.2d 1183 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1996

University of Pittsburgh, 421 Pa. 220 , 218 A.2d 798 (1966), cert. denied 385 U.S. 837 , 87 S.Ct. 84 , 17 L.Ed.2d 71 (1966). 4 Clearly, the PLRB is competent to decide whether an unfair labor practice has been committed, … That between the October meeting and November 9, 1993, the PSP and the Bolden plaintiffs negotiated an agreement whereby the Bolden plaintiff class would not file suit to increase the number of qualified minorities and would

STONE & EDWARDS INS. v. Dept. of Ins.

151 Pa. Commw. 266 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1992

Insurance Department argues that a demurrer should be granted because Stone and Edwards has not pled facts which establish a claim upon which relief may be granted. … Whether such a system has been statutorily created within the Insurance Department is clearly an issue which, if proven, would allow Stone and Edwards the requested relief sought in their complaint.

Bethlehem Area School District v. Carroll

151 Pa. Commw. 193 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1992

In addition, Section 342.1(b), in defining “Autism/pervasive developmental disorder,” specifies that determination of that condition shall include “a full assessment by a physician qualified to render a diagnosis and by a … that Section 2509 of the School Code is subject to more than one “plausible reading” and argues that, based on the standard tools of construction, its interpretation of what the regulations and standards require is not clearly

Q. Smart v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2018

Allegations of medical malpractice are not sufficient to establish a Constitutional violation. … Ultimately, the—you were aware of the hearing date and you were—and your letter clearly shows you were made aware of the date and time.

Brown v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

150 Pa. Commw. 614 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 1992

The court imposed on the claimant the burden of showing “that such jobs were not in fact available, that he was not qualified in other respects for the employment, or that he was physically unable to perform the work.” … Kachinski clearly stated that an employer at the time of injury had no duty to inform the injured employee of every aspect of every job in question.

Moore v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles

19 A.3d 1200 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2011

Indeed, one who seeks to obtain or retain that status, while disclaiming the obligation to know that a license is valid for only four years and is not valid without a signature, undermines the premise that he “is qualified … We explained “good cause” is established “where the action of the employee is justifiable or reasonable under the circumstances.” Id. at 1015 (citation omitted).

C. Richardson v. J. Walsh, Supt. (Retired)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2016

[However, c]ourts allow defendants to raise immunity by preliminary objection where the defense is clearly applicable and where the plaintiff does not object. Both conditions exist here.” Balletta v. … However, in order for the Commonwealth to be found liable, a party must also establish that the cause of action falls under one of nine specifically enumerated exceptions to immunity

T. Haslam v. WCAB (London Grove Communication)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2017

In this regard, even without reference to “various injuries” under the C&R [Agreement] (under which the ambit of additional conditions would qualify), relief can appropriately be granted … The claimant appealed to this 8 The C&R Agreement clearly limited Employer’s responsibility for the indemnity aspects of Claimant’s work injury.

Com. Ex. Rel Caine Pelzer v. Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2023

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, but it can be raised in preliminary objections where the pleading establishes the immunity, and no objection has been lodged to raising sovereign immunity in preliminary … The purpose of mandamus is not to establish rights or to compel performance of discretionary acts but, instead, to enforce rights 4 that have been clearly established. Id.