Case law

A.D. Brown v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2018

Cmwlth. 2006) (“Brown is a well-qualified abusive litigator within the meaning of the PLRA.”); Brown v. 1 The Department additionally objects to the form of Brown’s petition, arguing that it … “[T]o establish the ‘credible allegation’ requirement of the Pennsylvania PLRA, it [is] imperative that he substantiate his averments with some form of evidence extrinsic to the complaint itself, such as medical documentation

City of Philadelphia v. L. Turner (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2024

Without clearly allowing the expansion to cover his other injuries, I will conservatively interpret this as counting only his lumbar radiculopathy. … The degree of the claimant’s impairment is determined by a qualified physician-evaluator pursuant to the AMA Guides. Id.

A. LaTorre v. PHFA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2023

The Agency’s “interpretation of [the Law] is entitled to great weight and should be disregarded or overturned only if such construction is clearly erroneous.” Horton v. Pa. Hous. Fin. Agency, 511 A.2d 917, 918 (Pa. … Rather, LaTorre argues he has “sufficient funds to pay back mortgage payments in order to qualify for the HEMAP loan.” Petition at 2.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. The County of Montgomery, PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2023

Preliminary objections are to be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). … the County argues, this Court could determine that conduct with such a limited impact could be a public nuisance, then “the poisonous and decaying paint on tens of thousands of walls of the County’s homes . . . would also qualify

S. Schwartz v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2015

Id.; see also Albert, 854 A.2d at 410 (“in order to qualify as a ‘single housekeeping unit,’ a 15 group of individuals in a single household must not only function as a family … However, even Albert is of little application because the ordinance there had left “family” undefined, whereas here the ordinance very clearly defines the term.

Lexington Nat'l. Ins. Co. v. Delaware County

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2022

The General Assembly must clearly show its intent to preempt a field in which it has legislated. The test for preemption in this Commonwealth is well established. … Clearly, Insurance Companies, as insurers, are licensed by the Insurance Department.

In Re: for Formation of Ind. Sch. Dist. Consisting of the Borough of Highspire, Dauphin County, PA ~ Appeal of : Highspire Ed. Coal.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2020

The Coalition’s petition also pointed out that the Auditor General found that Steelton-Highspire has a financial deficit; is non-compliant with teacher certification requirements; and does not properly qualify its school … The legislature clearly intended to foster the creation of financially stable school districts for educational policy reasons.

L. Ragin v. SEPTA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2021

The trial court rejected Appellant’s argument that the operator’s driving record was relevant to a claim of negligent entrustment of the bus and agreed that such a claim does not fall within the exceptions to sovereign immunity … and can only be granted in cases where it is clear a cause of action was not established.

Commonwealth v. Phillips

87 Pa. Commw. 504 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1985

Clearly, the trial court considered the evidence only to determine the condition of Route 26 in the vicinity of the fatal accident and to impute actual knowledge to DOT of ¡the ¡existence of the dangerous condition. … We have held that the Commonwealth is not immune from the assessment of delay damages. Christy v. Barr, 78 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 354 , 467 A.2d 1362 (1983). Moreover, we held in Commonwealth v. Twentier, 76 Pa.

Westmoreland County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

991 A.2d 976 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2010

However, the evidence offered by the County does not clearly explain its contention that the structural change has no effect on the duties of current Establishment Supervisor. … The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) construes "supervisor" so narrowly that virtually no person, save the President Judge of Westmoreland County, qualifies for the position.

Constitution Drive Partners, L.P. v. DEP

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2021

The 2007 Amendment “amended and restated” Constitution Drive’s remedial obligations established under the 2005 PPA. … Code §69.414(a). 16 however, qualify the exercise of those rights based upon a percentage evaluation of the public’s likelihood of success on the merits.

K. Tolbert v. J. Rogers

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2026

However, on April 14, 2024, Appellant allegedly suffered a “vertigo-induced fall,” which precipitated his transfer to SCI-Forest, a facility that could accommodate his qualified disabilities. Id. at 12; but see id., Ex. … Code § 69.414(a). 5 negligent circumstances “is meant to apply only in unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly established that [he] attempted to

R.S. Shick v. M.R. Clark, Superintendent

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2019

Our review of the Complaint reveals that, in addition to not clearly setting forth any cause(s) of action that Shick seeks to pursue, the Complaint fails to specify any wrongdoing perpetrated upon Shick by Respondents, let … Shick fails to allege any specific acts on the parts of Respondents that, if accepted as true, would establish their liability or entitle Shick to the relief which he seeks.

Anderson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

862 A.2d 678 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2004

Peterson works for Employer as a qualified mental retardation professional supervisor. Ms. … Clearly, the touching that was involved in Cantarella did not result in a physical injury.

Resource for Human Development, Inc. v. T. Cornish (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2024

Gill established herself as the “custodian or qualified witness” of the EMRS entries made by Ms. Goodbody, whom Ms. Gill supervised, and that Ms. … While the first scenario seems unlikely, the second clearly serves to undermine the accuracy of the EMRS entries and the Board’s subsequent conclusion that an EMRS entry represents contact between DVM and Administrator “at

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

157 Pa. Commw. 651 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 1993

Here, the Bureau clearly enunciated its interpretation of the law in its Notice of Determination and also had a representative present at the referee’s hearing. … Relying on that case, G-P contends that WARN payments qualify as remuneration because, like the payments in General Teamsters, they represent loss of wages owed Claimants with respect to the claim weeks at issue here.

Scenic Philadelphia and Tacony Academy Charter School v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2016

Cmwlth. 1990); however, neither of these decisions was a zoning decision, which our General Assembly has clearly precluded taxpayers from appealing unless they are aggrieved. … Cmwlth., No. 358 C.D. 2014, filed May 14, 2015) (en banc) (determining that Scenic did not establish standing through its organizational purpose or its members).9 Armstead, however, further determined that Scenic could establish

Quality Driven Copack, Inc. v. Com. of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2022

Cmwlth. 2019) (citations omitted). 4 not qualify as “help supply” and is, therefore, exempt from sales and use tax. … These latter tasks clearly were in view in QDC I where we referred to “hands-on” supervision: The distinction in each case is the actual degree of authority exercised by the taxpayer.

Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

853 A.2d 1097 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2004

The fact that the PUC has established standards that give meaning to the requirement in Section 1501 that a utility establish “reasonable conditions” for extending service is not an abdication of responsibility. … “Targeting” low cost debt to particular extensions would be unfair to other bona fide applicants that did not qualify for Penn Vest. PUC Opinion and Order at 12.

R.L. Stasa v. Bureau of Driver Licensing

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2020

In the first test, Licensee clearly sucked back, contrary to Officer Gallman’s instruction to not “drink the milk” and only “blow bubbles.” (Id. at 44a.) … Accordingly, the printouts and Officer Gallman’s testimony qualify as substantial evidence that Licensee did not provide sufficient breath samples, and, under our precedent, this qualifies as a refusal.