Case law

Yongs Place, Inc. v. PA LCB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2023

The police reports in question clearly constitute hearsay, “because they contain out-of- court statements offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein.” First Ward, 11 A.3d at 44. … “Remedial measures must be taken at a time when the licensed establishment knows or should know that illicit activity is occurring on the premises.” I.B.P.O.E., 969 A.2d at 649.

R.A. Williams v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2016

[A p]etitioner[’s] threshold burden when seeking a permanent injunction is to establish a clear legal right to relief. … Hepatitis C affects 3[.]2 [m]illion Americans and kills more people each year tha[n] HIV/AIDS in the United States and is clearly a severe life threatening viral infection.

PA PUC v. S. Blanchard & StateImpact PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2023

To that end, it removed CSI from the domain of the OOR under the RTKL and placed it squarely in the hands of public utilities and qualified agencies under the CSI Act. … As is now clear, under Friedman I and II, the OOR had no jurisdiction to make those determinations once the CSI designation was established in the record.

American Totalisator Co. v. Seligman

34 Pa. Commw. 391 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1978

AmTote is clearly innocent of laches. … If such a rule is to be established it must be held to work both ways, and this would lead to favoritism and fraud in its varied forms which tbe courts have said must not be allowed.

TOA Green Pond Advisors, LLC t/a TOA Green Pond, L.P. v. Bethlehem Twp. & The Pidcock Co.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2021

As noted above, a mandamus action is only appropriate where the legal right is “clearly established.” … The fact that there is no other case where [TOA’s] alleged right to relief has been upheld leads to the necessary conclusion that the purported right to relief is not clearly established.

A. Ziegler v. City of Reading and Reading Area Water Authority

142 A.3d 119 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2016

As a final point, the trial court here clearly determined that the City’s curbside recycling fee made the recycling program sustainable. … Even if the City may have qualified for more grant money, it is clear that grant money alone cannot fund the gap. As demonstrated by DEP’s reduction of award amounts, the recycling fund coffers are limited.

AT&T v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

709 A.2d 980 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1998

As for their argument that the ALJ only considered funding when deciding how to allocate costs, this clearly was not the case based on the ALJ’s lengthy discussion involving the four other factors. … Article I, Section 17 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 be passed

In Re: Petition for Appointment of Constable ~ Appeal of: E. Zamora

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2016

The existence of a second constable position may not have been one of the noted, enumerated benefits, but it is clearly permitted under 44 Pa. … . §7114(a) states that the qualified electors of each first class township may vote for and elect a second properly qualified person to serve as constable.

S. Russo v. Upper Darby Twp. (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2025

In the alternative, Petitioner asserts that even if the mental/mental standard had been correctly applied, the record clearly indicates that he endured abnormal working conditions in the November 20, 2020 incident. … However, I cannot agree with the Majority that the incident here qualifies as an abnormal working condition sufficient to support benefits under the mental/mental theory of recovery for psychological injuries.

M. Marinkovic v. Mercer County Tax Claim Bureau

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2019

The First Cause of Action (fraud) is precluded by the immunity under the [the Tort Claims Act], the Commissioners’ immunity as high public officials, and the failure to meet the elements … In what is clearly another twist to an already contorted matter, we will affirm the trial court’s denial of Marinkovic’s Second Extension Motion, but on alternative grounds.12 Marinkovic did not need an extension of time,

William Penn S.D. v. PA Dept. of Ed.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2023

AGI may, therefore, establish confidence in the “directionality” of growth, but it does not establish the level of growth. (Tr. at 1990-91.) 449. … Belfield was qualified as an expert in the economics of education. (Tr. at 8966.) Dr.

F. Twardy v. City of Phila., Bd. of License and Inspection Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2014

There was clearly substantial evidence to support a public nuisance finding. … Cases presenting mootness problems are those that involve litigants who clearly had standing to sue at the outset of the litigation.

City of Pittsburgh v. R. Borelli (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2023

Therein, Employer alleged that Claimant was partially disabled, and that a recent Earning Power Assessment (EPA) found Claimant to be physically able and qualified to perform several jobs. Id. … Patton notified Claimant of five open and available jobs which she would be qualified and able to perform. Id. at 14. Claimant applied for all five positions after Mr.

In Re the Nomination Petition of Ford

994 A.2d 9 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 2010

In short, as the statutory language of the UAA and The Notary Public Law clearly mandate, the person whose signature is to be acknowledged must appear “before” the acknowledging officer. … The instant case is clearly not about an improperly completed affidavit or a technical deficiency like that in Kloiber. Here, there is no technical mistake that can be amended.

Leone v. Borough of Rochester

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2015

These individuals must be living together as a single housekeeping unit with one (1) or more qualified adults providing twenty-four (24) hour supervision. … Here, Landowners have established that the Zoning Ordinance is de jure exclusionary with regard to a partial CRRS use.

Central PA Radiation Oncology, P.C., a PA corp. v. The Good Samaritan Hospital of Lebanon, PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2021

Unal, which are clearly not admissible. … Super. 1974), When a plaintiff relies on subsequent acts to establish conspiracy, these acts must be such as to clearly indicate the prior collusive combination not slight circumstances of suspicion. Id.

K. Brown v. P/O G. Gee & City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2023

The question of whether the [Appellees are] entitled to summary judgment is based purely upon the statutory construction of the applicable immunity provisions. Dean v. [Pa.] … Specifically, in his Summary of Argument, Appellant states: Contrary to the trial court’s opinion, established case law from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirms that multiple

Pocono Mountain School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

113 A.3d 909 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2015

However, it is not necessary that the injured body part be one hundred percent useless in order for the loss of use to qualify as being for all practical intents and purposes. … Because the WCJ’s credibility determinations were clearly supported by the record, we may not disturb them.

T.J. Perkins v. Consolidated PA Coal Co., LLC & East Coast Risk Mgmt., LLC (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2024

If the employer seeks modification to establish a specific loss, it must show that the injured party has suffered the permanent loss of use of the injured member for all practical intents and purposes. 4 … It is well settled that a WCJ, who is not qualified as an expert medical witness, is not permitted to substitute or rely on his own opinion to make medical findings. Zeigler v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.

In The Matter of the Nomination Papers of M. Mlinarich Appeal of: S. Butler

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2021

Berks County Board of Elections, 884 A.2d 867 (Pa. 2005), where the candidate was involuntarily removed from the primary ballot and the Court held that the candidate still qualified as a primary candidate because he intended … Further, our Supreme Court has clearly indicated that reliance on official interpretations does not excuse a failure to comply with express provisions of the Election Code.