Case law

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.

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.

Warren County Human Services v. State Civil Service Commission

844 A.2d 70 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2004

However, if convicted criminals who had been working at a covered facility for more than a year as of July 1, 1998, were capable of essentially rehabilitating themselves so as to qualify them to continue working in a covered … Statutory provisions are "presumed to be constitutional and may only be found to be unconstitutional if the party challenging the law can prove that it `clearly, palpably, and plainly' violates the Constitution."

J.R. Cellucci and E.H. Cellucci, his wife v. Laurel HOA

142 A.3d 1032 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2016

Consequently, Owners argue the record clearly shows the trial judge abused his discretion in denying their recusal petition. 2. … In order to qualify as a pending action, a real controversy must be filed and pending in the same or some other court. No such action existed at the time Owners filed their declaratory judgment complaint in March 2015.

M. Dukes v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2021

A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer tests “the legal sufficiency” of the petition and will be sustained only in cases where the pleader has “clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. … claim; (f) [] Petitioner has failed to attach a proper Certificate of Merit, because this claim is the kind of claim which requires expert medical testimony to establish

R.B. Carter v. Bureau of Driver Licensing

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2025

He contends that the Trooper’s reading of the Miranda warnings shortly before reading the DL-26B Form was per se confusing because the Trooper failed, after reading the DL-26B Form, to further clearly explain to him that … 8  An arrestee is entitled to this information so that his choice to take a breathalyzer test can be knowing and conscious and we believe that requiring the police to qualify

Whitmoyer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

150 A.3d 1003 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2016

Further, we reject Claimant’s characterization of the letters, as they do not clearly evidence any agreement terms, let alone consideration. … Stated differently, Claimant contends, there was appropriate communication between the parties here establishing a waiver or release by Employer. b.

J. Marshall & D. Marshall v. E. Bradford Twp. Bd. of Supers.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2021

Here, Landowners seek to establish a B&B estate for overnight guests and special events. … Cmwlth. 2019) (Hansford Appeal), concerned whether the owner of real property sold at a tax sale qualified as an owner-occupant as defined in Section 102 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (RETSL).1 The facts presented in the

R.L. Woodworth v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2015

The claimant establishes good cause where he or she demonstrates that the actions are justified or reasonable under the circumstances. Id. at 1147-48. … Claimant also contends that because Employer witnesses did not observe him throughout the 7 entire period he worked on January 2, 2015, they were not qualified to testify as

Pennsylvania State University v. Public Utility Commission

988 A.2d 771 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2010

[N]owhere within the service types to be served under the RFP ... is Tariff 37 identified as qualifying for load service.” Final Form Brief for Intervenor West Penn Power Company, July 20, 2009, at 23. … PSU argues that because it did not receive notice that clearly stated that the extended generation rate cap did not apply to the Tariff 37 account it was possible to conclude that PSU did not receive reasonable and adequate

Malt Beverages Distributors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board

966 A.2d 1188 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2009

Dunham testified, in his years of experience studying retail establishments, he found similar retail establishments often locate together to enhance all of their businesses. … It noted the proposed licensed area would be clearly separated from the unlicensed portions of the premises by four-foot high barriers.

Federal Kemper Insurance v. Insurance Department of the Commonwealth

143 Pa. Commw. 545 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1991

the burden of proving that there exist extraordinary circumstances justifying relief under Section 1799.7(b)(3), but contends, rather, that it satisfied that burden by filing a rate increase request with supporting data establishing … Federal Kemper’s supposition that it carried its burden of proving its justification for extraordinary circumstances relief by filing for rates which it deems to be in compliance with the Rate Act is clearly belied by the

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

965 A.2d 349 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2009

The majority assigns no significance to the qualifying phrase, “if you have prior refusals or have been previously sentenced for driving under the influence.” … To the contrary, we have held PennDOT to strict compliance with the Section 1547 warning requirement, as Peppelman, Everhart and Yoon establish.

POM of PA, LLC v. Dept. of Revenue & City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2019

illegal gambling device, the Gaming Act does not give the Gaming Control Board the power to regulate illegal gambling devices. 17 Of course, we do not answer the separate question of whether the POM Game qualifies … Moreover, since implied repeals are not favored, “legislative intent to repeal a statute by enacting another must be clearly shown.” Id.

Coppolino v. Noonan

102 A.3d 1254 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2014

I, § 17 (stating that “[n]o ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed”). … In this case, by contrast, the only trigger for the provisions Coppolino complains of is, as noted above, conviction for a *1273 qualifying predicate offense.

PECO Energy Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

682 A.2d 49 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 1996

We glean from the foregoing decisions that speculation pertaining to an employer’s financial condition and future layoffs, however disconcerting, does not establish the requisite necessitous and compelling cause. … Clearly, we must examine the circumstances surrounding each claimant’s departure on an individual basis, so as to understand what exigencies he faced at the time he decided to separate from employment.

UMCO Energy, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection

938 A.2d 530 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2007

regulation, which states that the regulation applies to “larger streams.” 13 UMCO asserts that the preamble must be considered in construing the regulation because there exists an ambiguity as to what types of perennial streams qualify … It must show that the Department’s disparate treatment “clearly, palpably and plainly” violates its constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Commonwealth v.

In re Silverman

90 A.3d 771 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2014

To pay him an additional $4465.00 would be excessive given budgetary constraints, and clearly not justified when looking at the case as a whole. Id. … “However, the mere fact that the regulation deprives the property owner of the most profitable use of his property is not necessarily enough to establish the owner’s right to compensation.”

M.R. Schmidt v. Schmidt, Kirifides and Rassias, PC (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2023

Clearly, Claimant has benefitted from using CBD oil. The Dissent ignores this significant fact. … Clearly none of these cases denied reimbursement at the penalty petition stage.

D.E. Lyons v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2016

Because the record evidence clearly demonstrates that Lyons’ minimum medical expenses of $2,500.00 a month exceed his $1,538.61 monthly spend-down obligation, we hold that Lyons is eligible for NMP-MA under Section 181.13 … Accordingly, the ALJ erred in determining that Lyons did not qualify for MA benefits.