Case law

Com. of PA v. K.R. Laskovich

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2019

Cmwlth. 1979) (witness not qualified as a legal expert was not permitted to testify to a conclusion of law); accord Sanford’s Estate v. … Wagner clearly had probable cause to believe the game camera contained evidence of criminal activity.

R. Berner v. Montour Twp. ZHB and S. Sponenberg

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2016

The ZHB concluded Applicant’s proposed swine nursery qualifies as an Intensive Agriculture and Agricultural Support use as defined by the zoning ordinance. … Ultimately, the ZHB concluded Applicant’s proposed swine nursery qualified as an Intensive Agricultural and Agricultural Support use under the zoning ordinance.

B&A Property, LLC v. Bensalem Twp. ZHB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2024

The Township provided testimony from a township zoning officer that this use qualifies as a trucking yard or terminal. N.T. Hr’g, 4/1/21, at 34. … Clearly, Appellant is not merely parking vehicles on the property, but rather using the property as the operational hub of its trucking business, a heavy impact use more suitable in an industrial district. See id.

D. Snyder v. County of Allegheny & UPMC Benefit Mgmt. Srvcs., Inc. (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2023

Petraglia’s initial incorrect recollection that the injury involved heavy lifting, but the WCJ’s decision clearly explains that Dr. … Agnew specializes in hip and knee conditions and was less qualified than Dr. Petraglia concerning the medical issues here. Claimant’s Br. at 19-20.

PA Environmental Defense Foundation v. Com. DCNR, & C. Adams Dunn

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2021

The statements in the 2016 SFRMP were made before PEDF was decided and clearly do not reflect post-PEDF considerations. … Mandamus is not proper to establish 32 legal rights but is only appropriately used to enforce those rights which have already been established. Id.

In re: Appeals of Sandmeyer Steel Co. ~ Appeal of: Sandmeyer Steel Co.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2024

Contrary to GBCL’s assertion, the proposed uses on the Property clearly fall within the foregoing description of “General Industrial” uses. 10 Phila. Code §14-601(10)(d). … Finally, GBCL asserted the proposed uses qualified as intensive industrial uses that are prohibited in the I-2 zoning district.

J.D. Mellott v. Dept. of L&I, Bureau of Occupational & Industrial Safety

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2023

Malot testified that Petitioner was a qualified candidate for certification with more than the required hours of continuing education credits for each of the six disciplines in which he seeks to be certified. … Limiting the grandfather provision in this way was clearly related to carrying out the rest of the UCC by restricting the number of persons who could avoid the regulation’s main testing requirements.

In Re: Nom. of G. Masino ~ of M. Grimes Santilli & D. Bond

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2023

From this, it appears that Objectors knew how to clearly state that an elector was not registered in the Democratic Party, and did not do so for the lines they subsequently asserted were subject to this challenge. … Objectors assert they were attempting to establish fraud, at least as to one of the signature lines.

Sidelines Tree Service, LLC v. DOT

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2021

These provisions are more stringent than those applicable to qualified employees. See U.S. … Sidelines is qualified to perform tree trimming and stump removal under the statewide Invitation to Qualify, numbered 4400014261 (ITQ), administered by the Department of General Services.

O. Herbert & M. Herbert v. W. Reading Borough ZHB & Borough of W. Reading ~ Appeal of: Borough of W. Reading

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2021

In its ensuing opinion, the trial court rejected the Borough’s assertion that even before the November 20, 2018, inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance of a specific definition of “vehicle,” the Herberts’ trailer qualified as … Thus, the Herberts have not established that the Notice was defective in any material, much less fatal, way.

C.A. Leinberger v. A.G. Stellar, Trustee of the D.E. Stellar Revocable Trust

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2018

The evidence clearly establishes that the only building located on the [subject property] is a dwelling unit that meets the definition of Section 925 [of the zoning ordinance]. … It stated that the Supreme Court’s decision in Albert established a policy against transient uses in districts zoned for single-family dwellings.

Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

161 A.3d 446 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2017

The WCJ found: [Claimant], age 62 as of her testimony, is clearly [eli]gible to receive benefits as a widow; no dispute exists as to her status. … Singer is well qualified to express relevant opinions in this case. . . . 11. Dr. Lippman . . . totally negated the workplace as a causal factor in [] Bromley’s bladder cancer.

C.A. Leinberger v. A.G. Stellar, as Trustee of the D.E. Stellar Revocable Trust

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2020

Legal Distinctions – Ordinances Compared First, the Ordinance is clearly distinguishable from that in Slice of Life. … By contrast, the Slice of Life ordinance required occupation of the single-family dwelling by one qualifying family “exclusively.” Id.

PA Dept. of L&I v. J.E. O'Connor

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2021

The Department argues that acceptance inspection reports qualify as construction-related records and are not subject to the RTKL. (Id. at 16-17.) … Cmwlth. 2015), because those cases have found that a “triggering event” is not required for an “official probe” to qualify as a “noncriminal investigation.” (Id. at 21-27.)

R.E. Rodgers v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2019

The Referee concluded as follows: [C]laimant meets the normal requirements to establish a weekly benefit amount. … Although the Service Center did not specifically identify Section 401(c) as a basis for denying benefits, it clearly stated that its reason for denying benefits was Claimant’s failure to “work and earn six times [his] preceding

City of Philadelphia v. F. Galdo

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2021

Rather, the foregoing cases concern consistent and notorious use of property as opposed to temporary, sporadic use, and the stipulated facts here clearly establish that Galdo engaged in consistent use of the Galdo Parcel … Rather, the evidence of record clearly establishes that Galdo had actual possession of the Property that encompassed the entire Galdo Parcel and that his use was consistent through the

Bloomsburg Town Center, LLC v. Town of Bloomsburg

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2020

Shepstone also admitted that when individuals are going through detoxification, “clearly” some sort of a “medical procedure” would be required to “pull them down from whatever they are on,” and that drugs may be administered … Again, we are confronted with the term “primarily” as a qualifier for the types of services a facility must provide to fit within this definition under the Ordinance.

D. Hommrich v. PA Public Utilities Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2017

regulations or who qualifies as a customer-generator. … He is seeking pre-enforcement review to 28 establish that he is qualified to net meter as a customer-generator under the AEPS Act.

Twp. of Marple v. PA PUC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2023

We defer to the Commission’s interpretation of the Code and its own regulations unless the Commission’s interpretations are clearly erroneous. Coal. for Affordable Util. … Reading Section 102 of the Code in conjunction with Section 619 of the MPC leads us to the conclusion that, in the context of public utilities, anything that does not qualify as a building under the latter should be considered

Tobyhanna Twp. v. Tobyhanna Twp. Volunteer Fire Co.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 2026

Tutrone’s testimony conclusively established that Fire Tax revenue was used to purchase vehicles only, not equipment. … The testimony and evidence clearly shows that [Appellant’s] actions were volitional.