Case law

Grandview Surgical Center, Inc. v. Holy Spirit Hospital of Sisters of Christian Charity

111 Pa. Commw. 159 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1987

The Board did not consider the merits of the Secretary’s CON approval because it found that the proposal did not qualify as an exception to the State Health Plan. … Section 701 of the Act, 35 P.S. §448.701, provides that “no person shall offer, develop, construct, or otherwise establish or undertake to establish within this State a new institutional health service without first obtaining

Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Board of Education

66 Pa. Commw. 219 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1982

Although the record herein has established quite clearly that the Pittsburgh Board has not yet achieved 100% desegregation, as defined by the Commission, it is also quite clear that the Pittsburgh Board has taken an important … As of July, 1980 4600 students had qualified for the magnet school program. (Pittsburgh Board Requests 22, 27, 29) 10.

T. Spencer v. M. Grill and Construction Code Inspectors, Inc.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2018

The Supreme Court opined that while no hard and fast rule exists to determine whether a particular relationship is that of employer-employee or owner-independent contractor, certain guidelines have been established and certain … , as amended, 35 P.S. §§ 7210-101-7210-1103. 7 appropriate building codes, review and issue permits, and serve as primary on-site inspector for UCC field inspections, all clearly

C.S. Cellini v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2025

Indeed, there is no clearly defined argument section in her brief. See generally Claimant’s Br. … See Claim Information, Other Program Eligibility.10 The Board accepted this documentary evidence to establish that Claimant was not a “covered individual” qualified to receive PUA benefits.

Malone v. West Marlborough Township Board of Supervisors

145 Pa. Commw. 466 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1992

Here, common pleas interpreted our affirmance of the zoning board’s action in Dobrinoff as clearly authorizing the Board’s request of Malone’s proof of ownership. … Although Malone later proved ownership, the Board could not approve the subdivision plan at the time it voted because Malone did not qualify as a subdivider under the township’s ordinance.

Seltzer v. Department of Education

782 A.2d 48 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2001

The record clearly states that the Department was the relator in this matter. Further, the law mandates that unless, the school board is the relator, the complaint must be remanded to the school board. In Gow v. … This maxim establishes the inference that where certain things are specified in a law, all omissions should be understood as exclusions. Finkelstein v.

L.B. Foster Co. v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

705 A.2d 164 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1997

The State Act essentially requires that to qualify as domestic steel products, the product must contain at least 75% domestic steel. 73 P.S. § 1886 (the definition of “steel products”). … We find that the State Act clearly indicates that “transportation equipment” is to be defined with reference to SIC 37.

Hatfield Township Municipal Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

853 A.2d 1 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2004

On April 29, 1998, the parties filed a Joint Petition .for Full Settlement of PECO’s restructuring plan and related appeals, for a qualified rate order and for transfer of generation assets (Restructuring Settlement). … However, Hatfield’s arguments based on claims of unlawful discrimination, by which Hatfield clearly meant an unreasonable disadvantage to it, were sufficient to raise and preserve this issue.

Township of Worcester v. Office of Open Records

129 A.3d 44 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2016

Clearly, the Township asserts, the public policy implications at issue in this matter are of great importance. … Further, the Township cited no authority in support of the purported test it set forth to establish this exception. Id.

In Re: Appeal of F. Garcia ~ Appeal of: F. Garcia & K. Woods

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2022

Property qualifies as a unique hardship” under both [s]ection 14- 303 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code and governing precedent. Id. … Property qualifies as a unique hardship”).)

Butler Area School District v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform

172 A.3d 1173 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2017

However, there was no evidence that established the Property List contained public school employees’ home addresses. … Where information qualifies as a public record under the RTKL, statutory authority for disclosure already exists.

Valley Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

143 Pa. Commw. 131 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1991

The definition of “existing distribution line” requires that retail electric service be provided from a line in order to qualify the line as an “existing distribution line.” … Clearly, that requirement is met in this case.

A. Gadley Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industry, Office of Unemployment Compensation Tax Services

135 A.3d 1131 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2016

It asserts the only evidence establishing the 51% threshold is the PA-100 form. … At the outset, we emphasize “the interpretation given to a statute by the agency charged with its application is entitled to great weight and should be disregarded or overturned only if such construction is clearly erroneous

Pennsylvania Medical Society v. Department of Public Welfare

994 A.2d 33 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2010

Section 1112(a) of the Abatement Law 5 provides: (a) Fund established. There is established within the General Fund a special account to be known as the [HCPR] Account. … Accordingly, “[a] statute [or statutory repeal] is normally construed to operate prospectively[, and] shall [not] be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly.”

C. Young v. D.F. Oberlander

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2024

If, and only if, the party establishes the deprivation of a protected interest will the Court consider what type of procedural mechanism is required to fulfill due process. Id. … Appellees also assert in their Brief that they are all entitled to qualified immunity under federal law from Appellant’s claims.

D. Soland v. ZHB of E. Bradford Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2024

Therefore, the Marshalls have not established that the Tenant House is owner-occupied. … The Marshalls’ proposed use is clearly in the nature of a use variance, which the ZHB granted finding the deviation from the ordinance requirements to be de minimis. Id.

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.

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

Ivy Hill Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2022

The record does not establish that DHS opposes, has sued, or threatened to sue Ivy Hill. … one of its agencies tasked 8 with enforcing the reporting privilege at 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6311-6311.1, would address whether Ivy Hill’s elders are “clergymen” such that they are immune

J. Jacob v. Bureau of Driver Licensing

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2025

See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1603 (stating that “[t]he following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise”). … The DOT, therefore, established the basis for Jacob’s lifetime CDL disqualification in this case on the basis of Section 1611(c).