Case law

F.A. Realty Investors Corp. v. Board of Revision of Taxes ~ Appeal of: S.A. Frempong

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2019

Despite Frempong’s insistence that the agreement served to bind him in his individual capacity to pay the outstanding taxes for the tax years 2009-2013, the agreement clearly signifies that Frempong bound F.A. … Cmwlth. 2018) (holding that lessee had standing to challenge denial of tax immunity); but see Marcus Hook Dev. Park, Inc. v.

Churchill Community Development, LP v. Allegheny County Health Department

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2019

Therefore, he was not qualified to serve as an expert and his opinion lacked a foundation. … available, respectively, to qualify for the grants.

Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc. v. Dept. of L&I, Office of UC Tax Services

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2021

An employer’s tax contributions are held in a reserve account established and maintained by the Department. … The party asserting estoppel must establish these elements by clear, precise, and unequivocal evidence. Id.

County of Bucks v. M. Brock

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2025

OOR explained that Requester met her burden by simply stating that the requested records “do not qualify for any exemptions . . . and are not protected by a privilege.” Id. … Additionally, OOR ruled that the County has not yet proven that no other records exist or established that it has conducted a good-faith search for records. Id. at 121a-22a.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Pappert v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.

885 A.2d 1127 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2005

Based upon the foregoing, that the Commonwealth’s programs do qualify as “persons” under the UTPCPL, and that the purchases the programs made were for personal, family, or household use under Valley Forge Towers, we overrule … Clearly the Commonwealth’s Amended Complaint specifically refers to inflated AWPs that the Defendants allegedly communicated to the publishing com-pendia.

Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. PA DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2026

See The Establishment Clause, U.S. CONST. Amend. … As far as they go, however, the Concurring Opinion’s carefully sieved provisions of the Charter of Privileges and former and current Pennsylvania constitutions clearly establish that any right of conscience, particularly

Grim v. ZHB of Perry Township and Township of Perry

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2016

To qualify for a variance by estoppel, Landowners also must establish that the variance would not pose a threat to the health and safety of the community.2 571 A.2d at 535. … The trial court stated: The record clearly demonstrates that the speed, size and weight of the model airplanes and jets have increased over the past five decades to characteristics

AFSCME District Council 47, Local 2187 v. The City of Philadelphia & AFSCME District Council 33

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2022

. §§1101.101-1101.2301. 2 been ratified by a local municipal ordinance and appears to make such relationships immune to challenge by any rival labor organizations.”5 Id. at … In June 2016, the City Civil Service Commission approved a change in the job description of graphic design specialists to add a college degree with major course work in graphic design or visual communication design as a qualifier

Kimberly-Clark Mill v. W. Moss, Jr. (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2025

Buchholz indicated it was neurologically normal, but noted “what was striking were [Claimant’s] bizarre, unrecognizable movements that he exhibited throughout the encounter in a clearly non-neurological, psychogenic pattern … Sing’s testimony was not qualified or competent, and it did not provide substantial evidence upon which the WCJ or Board could grant Claimant’s Claim Petition. Id.

Jiffy Mini Mart, Inc. & Com. Gaming LLC v. PA Gaming Control Bd.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2020

These provisions clearly give the Board the authority to impose conditions, at its discretion, on an eligible truck stop establishment. … Jiffy contends that although the Board concluded that Jiffy “met its burden of proving that it qualifies as a truck stop establishment,” it ordered Jiffy to make significant capital improvements to maintain its License.

Stapleton v. Berks County

140 Pa. Commw. 523 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1991

negotiating with the potential contractors, as well as evaluating the returned bids to determine which were responsive and which was the “most economic” bid. 5 Six companies satisfied the RFQ criteria and were identified as qualified … Clearly, this provision merely allows an agency, which is procuring goods and services under the competitive bidding requirement of another statute, to prefer recycled products in the case of a tie between the lowest bidders

City of Philadelphia v. George T. Wake Inc. ~ Appeal of: Unequechic Salon & Boutique LLC & Y. Rice

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2021

Super. 1993)). 7 judgment must be filed to qualify as timely.” Castings Condo. Ass’n, 663 A.2d at 223 (internal citation omitted). … Generally, “[a] sheriff’s return setting forth that original process was served is conclusive and immune from attack as to the facts stated therein of which the sheriff presumptively has personal knowledge.”

Graybill v. Providence Township

140 Pa. Commw. 505 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1991

This court cannot reach a conclusion based on the Bachmans' characterization of Graybill's statement to establish that the flow was not unreasonable. … The township in its motion alleged the additional defense of governmental immunity under 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541-8542.

Quinn, Gent, Buseck & Leemhuis, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

147 Pa. Commw. 141 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1992

The question presented in this case is whether an employer's total ban on smoking within the workplace constitutes cause of a necessitous and compelling nature to voluntarily terminate employment, thereby qualifying an employee … Modification of smoking privileges within Employer's premises is clearly consistent with employment specifications regarding the manner of job performance.

L.C.S. Garcia v. State Board of Social Workers

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2025

Additionally, an agency’s interpretation of the law it is charged to enforce is entitled to great deference and will be reversed only if clearly erroneous. Alpha Auto Sales, Inc. v. … Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that her due process rights were violated in these claims.

K. Earley v. B.R. Smith, in his capacity as Super. of SCI at Houtzdale

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2018

Accepting this averment as true, as the Court must, it establishes that the Security Policy is indeed applicable. … In the alternative, the federal district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that the officials did not violate clearly established law. 9 See also Young v.

P.S. Platko v. WCAB (Laser Heating & Cooling)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2021

Skubick testified that in July 2016, he diagnosed Claimant with significant degenerative disc disease status post fusion from L4 to S1, widespread pain syndrome, qualifying for a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, and bilateral lumbar … As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained: [T]he employer bears the burden of proof in a termination proceeding to establish that the work injury has ceased.

R. Walker v. The City of Pittsburgh and Duquesne Electric Light and Power Company

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2016

Walker asserted a negligence claim against the City and Duquesne Light Company and contended that her claim met the “streets” exception to governmental immunity found in section 8542(b)(6) of what is commonly referred to … on a mere technicality since post-trial motions serve an important function in [the] adjudicatory process in that they afford the trial court in the first instance the opportunity to correct asserted trial error and also clearly

City of Philadelphia v. W. Zaccone

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2021

is mandatory in nature, which commands the performance of some positive act to preserve the status quo, “we have insisted that a clear right to relief in the plaintiff be established … The Pennsylvania Superior Court has further stated: Our case law has made it clear that all three prongs of the rule must be satisfied in order to qualify as a collateral order for our review.

H. Vesely through Trinity Living Center, L.P. v. DPW

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2015

The Notice provided that “[Veseley’s] eligibility for benefits ha[d] been reviewed and [she] did not qualify for [MA/LTC][4] because [she] did not finish the process to see if [she] qualif[ied].” Id. … Petitioner’s claim lacks merit because the record clearly establishes that TLC could have timely appealed from the CAO’s decision upon its receipt of the Notice.