Case law

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.

Gateway Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Highmark Wholecare v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2026

The CHC program is Pennsylvania’s mandatory managed care program for individuals receiving both Medicare and Medicaid, known as Medical Assistance (MA) in Pennsylvania, and individuals who qualify for MA long-term services … Every member of the evaluation committee provided an individual score by zone for each established evaluation criterion.

Goldata Computer Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Banking & Securities

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2025

The original [OTSC] clearly listed all the charges against [them], and [they were] given adequate time to respond. … That standard was clearly satisfied here.

J. Sokorelis v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2023

sufficiency of a pleading, commonly known as a demurrer, raises questions of law, and we “must decide whether it is clear from the well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences from those facts that the claimant has not established … “Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only in cases that clearly and without a doubt fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” Id. at 274.

Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers' Ass'n

992 A.2d 969 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2010

Although that statute requires PSP to suspend from employment any law enforcement officer charged with a qualifying criminal offense, we disagree with PSP that the CILEA unambiguously mandates that the suspension be without … However, as discussed later, a close reading of the Arbitrator’s award establishes that the Arbitrator did not determine that the CI-LEA-mandated suspension itself was discipline that required "just cause” or rescission.

L. Blackmon v. Sodexo Global Services (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2022

The Court reasoned that “it is in the interest of the employer that [c]laimant seek rehabilitation and treatment in order to recover from the initial work-related injury” and that the employer will “clearly benefit by not … However, as noted by Employer, Berro is distinguishable in that that claimant’s trip was to physical therapy for an earlier work-related injury, and thus qualified for the “special circumstances” exception to the general

T. Meyer v. City of Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission

201 A.3d 929 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2019

Guidelines which establish standards which the Commission can utilize in determining the appropriateness of applications. … The record does not establish, however, whether Johnson has completed the construction.

General Motors, LLC v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs, State Board of Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers & Salespersons

169 A.3d 681 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2017

Section 9(a)(2) states, “Compensation for parts, including major assemblies used in warranty service, shall be at the dealer’s retail rate. . . .” and then addresses the process for establishing a dealer’s retail rate. 63 … [and] the Board's decision cannot be overturned unless clearly erroneous." Maggiano, 659 A.2d at 1074 (emphasis added), citing Alpha Auto Sales v.

Rosen v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs

763 A.2d 962 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2000

We conclude that these two statutes should be read in pari materia because each statute explicitly recognizes that there is indeed an overlapping of the professions, and neither one establishes a clear, mutually exclusive … Clearly, the phrase “human habitation or use” limits the range of projects that architects can undertake; but the language in the Engineers’ Law does not likewise limit engineers in the same manner.

Northeastern Pennsylvania Imaging Center v. Commonwealth

978 A.2d 1055 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2009

The parties agree that the principles established in Sheetz are appropriate to apply here, even though they disagree on the conclusion to be reached by their application. … Each system satisfies the three factors established in Sheetz for chattel that could be either personalty or realty.

Csx Trans., Inc. v. Pa. Puc

125 Pa. Commw. 528 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1989

. *536 Section 10903 of the Revised Interstate Commerce Act is clearly not in conflict with Section 2702 of the Code. … This also qualifies CSXT as a concerned party, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.

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

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

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 … However, this argument fails to recognize that the prescribed statutory scheme clearly dictates that the Commissioner shall have final authority in all phases of the proceedings.

Muscarella v. Commonwealth

39 A.3d 459 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2012

holding in McConnell II is more limited than suggested by Petitioner and that this matter may not be maintained as a class action because Pennsylvania law does not permit a class action to proceed where, as here, there are clearly … Petitioner, therefore, has established the requisite typicality.

J.R. Reviello, Jr. v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2015

Employer’s fitness-for-duty examination was clearly “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” … By disobeying Employer’s mandate to attend the exam, without good cause, Claimant clearly violated the terms of the last chance agreement. 11  2.

J. Barris v. Stroud Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2017

General immunity for noise All owners of rifle, pistol, silhouette, skeet, trap, black powder or other ranges in this Commonwealth shall be exempt and immune from any civil action or criminal … To overcome that burden, a challenger must show that the legislative enactment “clearly, palpably, and plainly” violates either the United States or Pennsylvania Constitutions.

B. Williams v. City of New Castle & Police Pension Board for the City of New Castle

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2025

Adopted 09-14-1995) 1 In its August 24, 2023 order, the trial court clearly set forth its disposition in paragraph 1 of the order including subparagraphs (a) and (b). We affirm this disposition. … Under those facts, our Supreme Court determined it “would clearly be a fundamental injustice to hold [the facility] responsible for the cost of caring for its Medical Assistance patients.” Id. at 383.

Commonwealth v. A.D.B.

752 A.2d 438 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2000

Further, there was not even an attempt to qualify the prosecution’s witnesses, Conservation Officer Tarkowski and/or Trooper Collins, or any other, as expert witnesses to provide testimony or other evidence that a flashlight … Specifically, the Commonwealth eyewitness testimony established that appellant and the victim was traveling between twenty-five and thirty miles per hour.

K. Knight v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2023

Attorney Sohonage clearly argued on behalf of Knight. … We rejected 10 that argument, noting that the record clearly established that the daughter was Stone’s duly authorized agent who timely appealed the March 2007 denial notice and

C.B. Turns, Jr., as Admin. of the Estate of M.E. Turns v. Dauphin County & Central Dauphin S.D.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2022

The Turns, and later [Decedent] alone, made no effort in over 41 years to quiet title to a property with such obvious deficiencies and clearly establish their right and accurate title … Taxing Authorities would have risked waiving the affirmative defense of laches (which the trial court determined had merit) and the application of certain statutory immunities had they not raised the same.

Westinghouse v. BD. OF PROP. ASSESS.

138 Pa. Commw. 30 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1991

Our limited scope of review is only to reverse the trial court when parties have shown it to have been `clearly in error.'" … In his oral adjudication from the bench, the trial court found that the witnesses on valuation were all qualified as experts, despite the fact that there were some questions about the nature of their qualifications, including