Case law

In Re the Nomination Petition of Shimkus

946 A.2d 139 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2008

Coar also testified that she did not see any personal items or toiletries to establish that an adult male was living there. Ms. … These definitions are helpful in that they establish that, whether one uses the term residence or domicile, one’s residence for purposes of qualifying for office must be a habitation where one has put down roots, not a place

S. Justice v. PSP Trooper Lombardo

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2020

Justice introduced into evidence a chart establishing $9,095 worth of lost income due to missed hairstyling appointments. Ms. … As a preliminary matter, the trial court recognized after the jury trial that it was clearly improper for Ms.

R. Derrickson v. CO Straziser

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2022

DOC Employees filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer, asserting sovereign immunity as a defense and arguing Inmate failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and did not establish a causal connection … Such an “abuse of discretion . . . requires a showing of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” Id.

Philadelphia DA's Office v. G. Stover

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2017

“In discerning whether records qualify as records ‘of’ a particular agency, we consider the subject-matter of the records. … “[A] record qualifies as ‘of’ an agency when that record documents a transaction or activity of the agency. ‘Documents’ means proves, supports [or] evidences.”

Troiani Group & Troy Dev. Assocs., L.P. v. City of Pittsburgh Bd. of Appeals, & City of Pittsburgh

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2022

The submitted documentation shall be revised to establish a plan for the demolition of [the First Avenue Structure] that does not include the demolition of adjacent structures. … The law is well established that “[i]t is the function of the fact-finder to weigh the evidence before it.” Pohlig Builders, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Schuylkill Twp., 25 A.3d 1260, 1266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

In Re: Vacation of a Portion of Paper Mill Rd. ~ Appeal of: Newtown Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2023

The common pleas courts shall proceed “by views and reviews, in the manner provided for the laying out of public roads and highways” by appointing a board of view consisting of three persons qualified to view the ground and … In other words, an abuse of discretion is established when findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. See id.

G. Pignetti & J. Pignetti v. DOT

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2023

Order #2 was also clearly entered in response to DOT’s preliminary objections, as it was entered the same day as Order #1. … Thus, Order #2 qualifies as an order overruling preliminary objections to a petition for appointment of a board of viewers, and it is appealable pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(e).

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.

Armco Advanced Materials Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

157 Pa. Commw. 150 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1993

In that case, North Branch proposed to build and operate a qualifying cogeneration facility (QF) 1 in Robinson Township, Washington County (Burgettstown Project), capable of providing up to 80 megawatts (MW) of power for … West Penn contends that its figures now establish that the power is unneeded and the PUC erred in refusing to consider the evidence it offered.

Kiskadden v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

149 A.3d 380 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2016

Eichler testified the ethane detected in Kiskadden’s water supply was clearly distinct from the ethane found in Range’s gas well samples. R.R. at 748a, 849a. 3. … Kiskadden maintains the definitive test clearly established the transport of constituents from the Yeager Site to his well. Yet, the Board’s adjudication is bereft of any discussion or acknowledgement of this theory.

Seekford v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

909 A.2d 421 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2006

In advancing this argument, Claimant contends that permanent injuries qualifying for specific loss benefits are treated separately and distinctly from the original work injury. … Schreffler is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In Schreffler the parties agreed that the two claimed injuries were unrelated and resulted from two separate events.

Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police

782 A.2d 623 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2001

time of his conviction, Section 807 of the Penal Code provided that larceny was a felony punishable by a maximum penalty of a fine of $2,000.00 and five years imprisonment. 2 The same criminal conduct, if committed today, qualifies … Further, Brady and Barrett clearly control situations where an individual, who had been legally in possession of a firearm or who could formerly purchase a firearm legally under the GCA, may not buy or possess a firearm after

R. Yearick, III and T. Yearick v. PA HFA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2015

As the primary earner, Robert Yearick’s job loss was because his employer ceased operations, and clearly was one in a series of factors beyond the Yearicks’ control causing the Yearicks’ financial situation. … The evidence further established that Robert Yearick had been unemployed for more than one year and had no pending job offers.

PA SCHOOL BOARDS ASS'N, INC. v. Zogby

802 A.2d 6 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2002

Standing Charter schools are established under section 1717-A of the Charter School Law, 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A. … A; if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated in the written notice.

R. DuBoise v. Comm. R. Evanchick & R. Gallagher

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2023

For the second report, there is a small amount of unknown DNA, but not enough unknown DNA to qualify for an upload.” Id. … Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that is only available to enforce already established clear and specific rights, it cannot be used to establish those rights.

Aquaro v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia

673 A.2d 1055 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1996

Aquaro appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County which remanded the case for the limited purpose of establishing a record on the issue of “unnecessary hardship.” … Aquaro was clearly a party in the proceeding before the ZBA for he was represented by counsel, who cross-examined the witnesses, and he testified as an objector. Naimoli v.

Tank Car Corp. of America v. Springfield Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2023

“Once a determination is made that a witness is a qualified valuation expert, the credibility and the evidentiary weight of that testimony is reserved for the finder of fact.” McGaffic v. … Oil thus clearly approves of the Cost to Cure Approach in the valuation of contaminated property, as applied in this case. In Harley-Davidson Motor Co. v.

Mascari Auto Body, Inc. v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2016

during the final incidents leading to his discharge from employment did not qualify as willful misconduct. … The warning clearly indicates that the action being taken is “dismissal.” (R. Item 16, Exhibit.)

Ex Rel. A. Bundy v. Sec'y. J.E. Wetzel, Sec'y. of PA Prisons

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2021

rights but, instead, to enforce rights that have been clearly established. … To establish deliberate indifference, the inmate must establish that: “(i) the prison official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; (ii) the prison official was aware of facts from which an

D.R. Smith, Ph.D. v. BPOA, State Board of Psychology

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2016

(ii) Is clearly identified and labeled as a psychology program, wherever it is administratively housed. … (vii) Has an identifiable body of students who are matriculated in the program for the purpose of qualifying for a degree.