Case law

Christian Retreat Center Allegheny Conference - BIC Church v. Juniata County Board of Assessment Appeals

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2016

R.A.P. 1925(b). 4 The trial court reasoned: Case law has established that the [Rules of Civil Procedure] do not apply to tax assessment appeals. … The collateral order doctrine is to be interpreted narrowly, and each prong of the doctrine must be clearly present before an order may be considered collateral. Brophy v.

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).

Allegheny Reproductive Health Ctr. v. PA DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2021

Further, their staff must assist patients to secure funding and question patients about personal matters to determine if they qualify for a coverage ban exception. Id. ¶¶84-87. … The Blatt opinion reasoned: There are clearly no allegations that the petitioner-doctors are in any way harmed or that the nonprofit organizational petitioners suffer any direct harm to themselves

A. DiPaolo v. UPMC Magee Women's Hospital (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2022

In Gibson, our Supreme Court addressed the General Assembly’s enactment in 1978 of sovereign immunity after it had been abrogated by a Court decision earlier that year. Id. at 81. … For these reasons, we conclude that Claimant has not established a vested right in her post-Protz-pre-Act 111 TTD status.

In Re: Appeal of L. Baltra From the Decision of the New Britain Twp. ZHB -- Appeal of: Bd. of Supervisors of New Britain Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2015

No. 69, it did not clearly base its ultimate determination on this testimony. … Indeed, it establishes that between six (6) and nine (9) vehicles which were not owned by Ms. Baltra or her son are generally parked at the property and that Mr.

Hope House in Midland PA, A Non-Profit Corp. v. Borough of Midland, PA, A Mun. Corp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2022

Twenty-four (24) hour supervision by qualified staff shall be provided. … Hope House asserts that our Supreme Court has established that a “single housekeeping unit” cannot include purely transient uses.

Commonwealth v. Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.

36 A.3d 1197 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2011

Clearly, this is not a case like Van Em-berg. … The trial judge concluded that the fact of loss was clearly established. The best manner of computing loss was a matter properly reserved to the discretion of the trial judge.

J. Taylor v. The PSP of the Commonwealth of PA

132 A.3d 590 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2016

I, § 17 (stating that “[n]o ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligations of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed”). … seek to establish in that hearing are relevant under the statutory scheme.”

R. DuBoice v. PA HRC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2020

The Commission found that DuBoice failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because he was unable to demonstrate that he was a “qualified individual.” … See Gaul, 124 F.3d at 581 (finding complainant failed to establish he was an otherwise qualified individual where “his proposed accommodation was unreasonable as a matter of law”).

Holt's Cigar Co., Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

952 A.2d 1199 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2008

First, the qualifier “any” as to authority seems purposely broad so as to be inclusive of the variety of governmental bodies that could, in one way or another, deal with issues addressed by the Act. … The City’s argument in this case is quite consistent with the confines established by the Supreme Court in Weber , as discussed in Nutter .

James J. McCarthy & Assoc., PC v. BPOA, State Bd. of Accountancy

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2021

As a “qualified association” under the CPA Law, 63 P.S. §9.8h(a)(1)(i), namely a professional corporation vested with a license to practice as an accountancy firm,9 Petitioner is a business entity that incurs liability, debt … which the association is incorporated or organized does not afford the shareholders, partners, members or other owners of equity interests in the association or the officers, employes or agents of the association greater immunity

York City Redevelopment Authority v. Ohio Blenders, Inc.

956 A.2d 1052 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2008

Whether Ohio Blenders Established a Prima Facie Case of Bad Faith ? In its third assignment of error Ohio Blenders contends that the trial court determined that a prima facie case of bad faith was established. … Clearly, based on this language, the PRPA does not apply to units of property identified as blighted before the effective date of the PRPA.

Stone & Edwards Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Department of Insurance

161 Pa. Commw. 177 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1994

However, a single administrative agency may exercise both prose-cutorial and adjudicative functions if “walls of division” are constructed within an agency that clearly separates those two functions. … An “adjudication” as defined by the Law is: Any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations of any

D. Hill v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2022

[s]tate . . . 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 … Cmwlth. 2017) (citations omitted). 6  Clearly, then, prisoners do not forfeit their First Amendment rights to use of the mails.[5] Bieregu v.

Com. v. WCAB (CLIPPINGER)

38 A.3d 1037 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2011

The existence of alternative means and the concern for "windfalls" are clearly matters to be evaluated. See Griffiths. … Further, Claimant maintains, his uncontradicted testimony before the WCJ established he inquired of Employer's carrier's adjuster about reimbursement of medical expenses and was instructed to send the adjuster a cover letter

Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School v. SD of Philadelphia and School Reform Commission

123 A.3d 1101 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2015

meeting the established eligibility criteria and submitting an application by the deadline established by the charter school, except that the charter school may give preference in enrollment … an instance in which we should rightly determine that the School District of Philadelphia (School District) is inappropriately applying this provision beyond its proper scope, this is not that case and Section 696(i)(3) clearly

Commonwealth v. Tolleson

14 Pa. Commw. 72 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 1974

The evidence clearly establishes that none of the prospects were ever advised on where their money went or for what it was used. … There is no established standard or qualification for a Membership Recruiter. 75.

A. Diop v. BPOA, State Board of Cosmetology of The Com. of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2022

The alleged harm to Henry is speculative, and Petitioners have not presented facts to establish her direct and immediate interest in asserting an as- applied challenge. … We agree with Respondents that Petitioners have not demonstrated that the Law, on its face, clearly violates the Pennsylvania Constitution.

J. Hall & R. Hall, his Wife v. R. Morris v. R. Hall

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2020

Further, the Act provides immunity for the non-intentional negligent acts of co-workers. … See Marazas, 97 A.3d at 861 (noting that an employer “cannot be estopped from taking a position contrary to the one it never established”); see also Ham v. Gouge, 257 A.2d 650 (Pa.

Seneca Landfill, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection

948 A.2d 916 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2008

We concluded that contrary to the Board’s determination, process residue and nonprocessi-ble waste did not need to be generated by a resource recovery facility to qualify for the exception in 27 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1). … Reisinger testified that the Department undertook a global refund process by which it intended to resolve all issues that any landfill may have had with respect to refunds of disposal fees, the December 16, 2005 letter clearly