Case law

Com. Preservation Alliance, Inc. v. T. DeSantis, Known Heir of J.F. DeSantis & Unknown Heirs of J.F. DeSantis

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 2020

Mancini could have petitioned the Trial Court for a conservatorship because she is clearly a party in interest under subsection (3) of the party-in-interest definition. … For such an entity to qualify as a party in interest, however, it must also establish, under subsection (4)(ii), that it is “located in [the City] and . . . participated in a project within a five-mile radius of the location

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

694 A.2d 378 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1997

The Board found that the April 1995 work stoppage was the result of a labor dispute rather than a lock-out, but that Claimant had satisfied the § 402(d) conditions, and thus was qualified to receive compensation. … Direct Interest The first two elements which claimant must establish under § 402(d) are that neither he nor the UTU was directly interested *382 in the TWU strike.

Towamencin Twp. v. PA LRB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2022

38 Congress clearly intended for eligible employees to have a total of 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid leave within a 12-month period for all FMLA-qualifying events during the 12-month period, even if the FMLA-qualifying … The above-quoted provision clearly includes two parts: (1) designation; and (2) notice.

Bethlehem Manor Village, LLC & PA Venture Capital, Inc. v. ZHB of the City of Bethlehem

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2021

Application nor through [their] expert witnesses at the hearing clearly establish that the facility me[t] the definition of ‘Hospital’[] because it will not be licensed as a hospital by the Department . . . ”; rather, a psychiatric … qualified as a hospital.

Allegheny County Department of Administrative Services v. A Second Chance, Inc.

13 A.3d 1025 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2011

. § 67.506(d)(1) by evaluating individuals to determine whether they qualify to provide foster care to dependent children. 2. … This provision, however, clearly does not apply in this case because the records in question are not in the County’s possession.

Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

783 A.2d 901 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 2001

Balfour argues in its Brief that, assuming arguendo that the time to request a suspension hearing expired on June 23, 2000, it had established grounds for requesting a hearing nunc pro tunc. … The order of the Hearing Officer dismissing Balfour’s appeal and request for a hearing from the Department’s action in suspending Balfour’s status as a pre-qualified contractor is reversed, and this matter is remanded to

City of Philadelphia v. F.A. Realty Investors Corp.

146 A.3d 287 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2016

Appellant omits this critical qualifier in an attempt to portray the trial court as inconsistent. … Therefore, Appellant failed to meet its burden to establish its readiness to pay the redemption cost.

M. Mirande v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2022

Because Claimant had already filed for UC benefits, however, the district manager informed him that he did not qualify.4 Id. … Section 401(d)(1) provides that a claimant will qualify for UC benefits if, in relevant part, he or she “[i]s able to work and available for suitable work . . . .” 43 P.S. § 801(d)(1).

Sugar Grove Twp. v. I.H. Byler, Individually and as Trustee of the Little Ash Trust

191 A.3d 84 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2018

The trial court also proceeded to cite to the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act (PCCA)7 for the proposition that no residence could ever qualify as a temporary structure because the same is defined in section 104(b)(8) as … Essentially, the trial court concluded that each of these criteria must be met in order to qualify as a temporary structure.

In re: Condemnation by the General Mun. Auth. of the City of Nanticoke ~ Appeal of: Nilved Apartments, LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2025

Clearly if the entire parcel is required in order to construct the planned building which would encompass a full city block, the taking was not “excessive.” … It is true that the mere possession of discretionary power by an administrative body does not make it wholly immune from judicial review, but the scope of that review is limited

L. Pate v. Rev. D. Wireman

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2015

You submitted your grievance on 3-3-14 which is clearly more than 15 working days from your submissions. … While that may be a clearly discernable typographical error, the common pleas court judge also accepted February 2, 2014, as the date of the event for which Pate filed a Grievance.

The Estate of D. Green v. Com. of PA, Treasury Dept., Bureau of Unclaimed Property

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2022

At most, the Orphans Court Decree established that RiverSource owed the Estate money. … This fact could explain why the Estate never sought to enforce the Orphans Court Decree and collect on the Annuity from RiverSource. 15 is not stated, the record clearly

PECO Energy Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

682 A.2d 40 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 1996

This memo read as follows: On December 31, 1994 qualified people who chose to retire will spend their last day at Eddystone. They will have elected back in August to retire. … Rather, Rath voluntarily accepted the early retirement plan subject to a release date to be established by PECO.

B. Prunty v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2021

Claimant contends her unemployment did not occur during a period between academic years, as the summer term is clearly included within Employer’s academic year. … The UCBR argues that the CCAC Court established factors to be considered in determining whether a summer term is a regular term.

Pa. Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Commonwealth Department of General Services

899 A.2d 389 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2006

Subject to additional definitions contained in subsequent provisions, and unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the word "contract" includes construction contracts. … Because the competitive sealed proposal method for construction contracts is clearly not prohibited by constitution or statute, this Court's inquiry should end.

C. N-Jie v. Com. of PA, DOT

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2023

PennDOT knew the bridge was the only access to the Property, and it “clearly had been used more than long enough to constitute part of the prescriptive easement.” Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Op. at 5. … Obedience to such regulation is not taking property without due process; that clause does not qualify the police power. Condemnation of Two Billboards, 452 A.2d at 85 (emphasis added).

Garzella v. Borough of Dunmore

62 A.3d 486 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2013

It is well established under both our Supreme Court’s Martino and Ziccardi decisions and the decisions of this Court that an aggrieved public employee cannot sue his employer for breach of a labor contract governed by state … This does not immunize the Union from the consequences of its bad faith or fail to compensate for the years of delay.

Commonwealth ex rel. Gallas v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

161 Pa. Commw. 97 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1993

Both petitioners and respondent agree that none of the disputed employees qualify as confidential under the first criterion, so we shall confine our analysis to whether any employees meet the second criterion. … [N.T. 66, 67] This testimony clearly establishes that individual judges are selected to participate on committees which formulate labor policy.

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

685 A.2d 607 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1996

It is not relevant that the licensee can establish a cause other than intoxication for the behavior observed by the officer. Id. … Clearly, a tax imposed for the possession and storage of drugs contains disparate elements from the offense of criminal conspiracy to possess drugs with the intent to sell.

Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Board of Assessment Appeals

151 Pa. Commw. 539 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1992

The common pleas court correctly interpreted these sections of PURTA as exempting railroad rights-of-way from local taxation only if the railroad right-of-way in question is owned by a utility, thereby qualifying as “utility … Alternatively, Petitioners contend that Manor Spur right of way is utility realty because it is owned by Monongahela. 2 The common pleas court concluded that the evidence established that Consol is the equitable owner of