Case law

Grimaud v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department

995 A.2d 391 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2010

Beaver Logging must compete with other logging businesses and different businesses in hiring and retaining qualified truck drivers. … The burden to overcome the presumption is heavy: “[A] statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violated the Constitution [and a]ll doubts are to be resolved in favor of finding

J.J. Cobbs, III v. City of Philadelphia (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2023

Pande never established an opinion that Claimant was at maximum medical improvement for the expanded injury as defined by the [S]tipulation. … So he was qualified for maximum medical improvement.

N. Schmerin v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2019

Section 404 of the Law provides that to financially qualify for UC benefits, an employee must have sufficient high-quarter and total qualifying base-year wages in covered employment, as set forth in a table titled “Rate and … This Court “must defer to the Board’s interpretation of its own regulation unless it is clearly 8 erroneous.” McKnight v. Unemployment Comp.

Verizon PA LLC & Verizon North LLC v. PA PUC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2023

By authorizing the PUC to issue such refunds, the General Assembly has clearly expressed its intention to allow retroactive relief. … Similarly, the Contracts Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides: “No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall

ChildFirst Services, Inc. v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2022

On October 5, 2020, DHS filed the Motion, contending therein that sovereign immunity barred ChildFirst’s claims against DHS and, even if sovereign immunity did not bar ChildFirst’s claims, the BHA lacked subject matter jurisdiction … Section 35.17 of GRAPP provides: Petitions for relief under a statute or other authority delegated to an agency shall be in writing, shall state clearly and concisely the grounds

A.D. Brown v. Tom Wolf

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2018

He claimed “the complaint clearly reflects [his] intentions of proceeding under the imminent danger exception to the three-strike rule [in Section 6602(f) of the PLRA].” Id. … Appellate courts recognize that Brown’s record of filing frivolous lawsuits is well-established. See, e.g., Brown v. James, 822 A.2d 128, 131 (Pa.

Ivy Hill Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Com. of PA, DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2026

Our disposition rests on DHS’s failure to contest the application, so we do not independently resolve whether Ivy Hill’s elders qualify for the clergyman privilege. I. … See generally DHS’s Br.; see also id. at 18 (declaring that “clearly [Watchtower], on behalf of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was keeping apprised of changes in legislation” (citation modified)).

R.D. Fegley v. Lehigh County Board of Elections

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2015

Furthermore, the proposed ordinance establishes the monitoring requirements, data disclosure, and emissions limits. … The qualified voters of the City shall have the power to propose ordinances to Council.

Olympus and Sompo America Insurance Co. v. D. Eiselen (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2023

Claimant sought to establish, through Ms. … Shollenberger’s credited testimony establishes those facts. Reviewing Ms.

Commonwealth v. Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.

36 A.3d 1112 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2011

Department of Aging/PACE PACE provides a comprehensive prescription drug benefit to qualified, older Pennsylvania residents. Id. at 2060-61 . … The trial judge concluded that the fact of loss was clearly established. Therefore, the best manner of computing loss was a matter properly reserved to the discretion of the fact-finder.

Twp. of Washington, Westmoreland County v. Twp. of Upper Burrell, Westmoreland County and Burrell SD

184 A.3d 1083 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2018

A person’s “place of employment” does not need the added qualifier “specific.” … The dividing line is clearly shown on the recorded subdivision plan. R.R. at 99a; Original Record (O.R.), Trial Exhibits, Defendant’s Exhibit A.

J. Kemps v. K. Steets (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2021

Section 306(c)(3) of the Act established a schedule of compensation for “all disability resulting from permanent injuries” of various classes, including subsection (c), which provides “[f]or the loss of an arm, sixty-six … Naftulin both testified that Claimant had no active range of motion, which condition was clearly related to her brain injury. Dr.

Walck v. Lower Towamensing Township Zoning Hearing Board

942 A.2d 200 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2008

Here, the ZHB noted Lorah testified he does not house animals on the subject property, and, therefore, his operation does not qualify as a CAO. … Clearly, the storage for approximately five months, of more than 100 tons of sewage sludge is raw material storage which is beyond the purview of normal farming activity. ZHB Op. at 5.

Crandell v. Pennsbury Township Board of Supervisors

985 A.2d 288 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2009

In order to obtain injunctive relief, the petitioner must at least establish *297 that the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law being available. … Here, the trial court found two of the three members of the Board were qualified to vote on any matter involving PVA.

Pioneer Construction Co., Inc. v. Insight Pharmaceuticals, LLC d/b/a Insight Pharmacy

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2025

something that already has been established. … something that already has been established.”

Center for Coalfield Justice v. Washington County Board of Elections

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2024

The Court observed that the purpose of Act 77 was to make voting more convenient for qualified electors and stated: “Despite its use of ambiguous terms as described above, the General Assembly clearly included the Having … The General Assembly did not intend for those authorized provisional 12 Act 77 established state wide universal mail-in voting.

N. Muma v. PA Dept. of Health, Division of Nursing Care Facilities

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2019

As part of its obligations under the Social Security Act, the Department is required to establish and maintain the Registry, which is a list of all individuals who have completed nurse aide training. … The Hearing Officer found that the Order to Show Cause clearly set forth the time for appeal, as determined by GRAPP, and Petitioner did not comply.

J.D. Schneller v. Prothonotary of Montgomery County, individually, and in his official capacity, and his employees, in their individual and official capacities

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2017

Here, a review of the complaint reveals that the statute of limitations was clearly implicated as a defense. … preliminary objection and the immunity defense.”)

J.D. Schneller v. Prothonotary of Montgomery County, individually, and in his official capacity, and his employees, in their individual and official capacities

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2017

Here, a review of the complaint reveals that the statute of limitations was clearly implicated as a defense. … preliminary objection and the immunity defense.”)

J. Ascencio v. WCAB (PA DOC)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 2017

The Board clearly shared the WCJ’s concern with “the lack of an injury description beyond injury to the heart.” Bd. Op., 11/5/15, at 5 (Remand Order). … Hildebrand illustrates that a claimant may establish the entirety of his claim without submitting medical evidence as to causation.