Case law

Gruzinski v. Department of Public Welfare

731 A.2d 246 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 1999

The Act establishes the eligibility criteria in section 473(a)(2) as the sole criteria. It does not set forth the listed criteria as minimums or as examples of eligibility criteria. … While the Final Order containing that opinion, in the form of two paragraphs may not be as verbose as other opinions tend to be, it does clearly contain the legal reasoning for the decision. .

J. Robins v. Sec'y. Harry

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2025

Allowing Petitioner’s proposed amendment to add two completely unrelated counts to his Amended PFR, more than two years after the Original PFR was filed, is clearly prejudicial to Respondents who have already responded both … (DOC’s Amended POs, at 12).14 Pennsylvania’s constitution establishes the right to appeal to an appellate court.

In Re: World Communications Charter School

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2023

The Fund was established from the net proceeds of the sale.4 (Petition & Answer ¶ 9.) … employment, and neighborhood and business development, and raising funds for such activities and programs whether conducted by the corporation or by other organizations which are qualified

J.P. Wescott v. Delaware County IU

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 2017

(d) Selection and notice. — The governmental unit shall select the qualified provider that best meets the needs of the governmental unit in accordance with criteria established by the governmental unit. . . … Our Supreme Court has stressed that “For a preliminary injunction to issue, every one of these prerequisites must be established; if the petitioner fails to establish any one of them, there is no need to address the others

M. Povacz v. PA PUC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2020

Constitutional Interest in Bodily Integrity The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in pertinent part: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … The PUC’s decision does not clearly purport to require Consumers to prove the meter installation is both unsafe and unreasonable as applied to them.

Balady Farms, LLC v. Paradise Township Zoning Hearing Board

148 A.3d 496 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2016

However, no evidence was presented to the Board to establish that Balady Farms’ proposed processing meets this definition. 11 1186 (Pa. … This Court upheld the trial court’s order, concluding that “in order to qualify as [] an agricultural operation . . . as defined by Section 107 of the MPC . . . , the use in question must have some connection to or utilization

T.W. Wojnarowski v. J.E. Wetzel, Sec'y. of the DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2021

In Lambing, the sentencing order clearly directed that “defendant shall pay the total due in monthly installments during the period of parole.” Lambing, slip op. at 6. … Conclusion For these reasons, we conclude that Wojnarowski has not established a clear right to the requested relief against any Respondents.

Capital Bluecross v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department

937 A.2d 552 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2007

The Department argues that the Insurance Holding Companies Act clearly and expressly excludes “blue plans” from Section 1401’s definition of “insurer.” … The order required the petitions to clearly state: a. The grounds of the proposed intervention in the [1996 Approval Order]; b.

In Re Return of Property Confiscated October 30, 1999 From 411 East Mac Dade Boulevard

856 A.2d 238 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2004

The trial court reasoned that although the police established that a gambling operation was occurring at the apartment, it failed to establish the “essential connection” of the confiscated money to the illegal operation. … Prior to this, Patton engaged in bookmaking for approximately eight years; thus, the trial court qualified him as an expert in the field. 14 .

B. Santello v. PHFA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2015

To qualify for emergency assistance and receive a HEMAP loan a homeowner must satisfy the requirements enumerated in Section 404-C(a) of the Act, 35 P.S. § 1680.404c(a). … In this circumstance, PHFA’s interpretation is entitled to great weight and should be disregarded only if such construction is clearly erroneous. Johnson v. Pa. Housing Fin. Agency, 512 A.2d 1319, 1322 (Pa.

County of Delaware, PA v. Delaware County Regional Water Quality Control Authority

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2022

--If a project established under this chapter by a board appointed by a municipality is of a character which the municipality has power to establish, maintain or operate and the municipality … Clearly, the Ordinance dictated the termination/dissolution of DELCORA. See Ordinance, §§1-2, 2.02.

G. Thomas v. J.E. Wetzel

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2022

The Fourteenth Amendment provides in pertinent part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life … every subsidiary issue that was raised in the trial court; this provision does not in any way limit the obligation of a criminal appellant to delineate clearly

King's Kountry Korner, LLC v. Department of Labor and Industry, Office of UC Tax Svcs.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2015

Kountry Korner was established in August 2005 as a general partnership. … independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.

A.M. Johnson v. PSP (OOR)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2024

In addition, [ORO] Rozier attested that the [i]ncident [r]eport is not a chronology of arrests that would otherwise qualify for disclosure as a “police blotter.” … and, therefore, qualified for exemption from disclosure.

A.P. Pew v. J. or J. Doe

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2025

This Court affirmed the trial court’s order, finding that the appellee had “establish[ed] that Brown has violated the ‘three strikes’ rule in Section 6602(f)(1).” Id. … IFP status is and continues to be governed by the filing of a proper application that establishes the proper financial need to qualify for such, which takes us to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240, Pa.R.Civ.P. 240.3

S. Donahue v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2025

“The purpose of mandamus is not to establish rights or to compel performance of discretionary acts but, instead, to enforce rights that have been clearly established.” … Donahue maintains that he need not establish disparate treatment, Mr.

R.R. Hulshizer v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2020

Claimant testified that he has an immune system problem and that two months after he began working for Employer he began to develop skin lesions and other symptoms. … The burden then shifted to Claimant to establish good cause for his conduct.

In Re Appointment of District Attorney

756 A.2d 711 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2000

. §§ 2901-3171, authorized counties to utilize home rule charters to establish a local government framework. Section 2962 of the HRC & OPL pertains to limitation of municipal powers. … It is well-established that district attorneys are considered county officers for jurisdictional purposes and not Commonwealth officers. Id. (citing Schroeck v.

Hopkins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

707 A.2d 1169 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1998

To determine whether a work stoppage is the result of a lockout or a strike, we must apply the well-established test set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Vrotney Unemployment Compensation Case, 400 Pa. 440 , 163 … The question of whether the extended agreement prohibits the District from re-posting a position where a qualified bargaining unit member is the only person to initially apply for the position involves an issue of interpretation

The Twp. of Unity v. J.A. Keller

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2016

Keller argues specifically that (i) the current ‘purpose’ of the structures is to house pets and any prior use is irrelevant; (ii) there is no support in the Ordinance to establish that the dogs are being raised as a hobby … Second, it refers to kennels used as shelter for domestic pets and therefore clearly contemplates that kennels encompass the housing of domestic pets.