Case law

Kalkreuth Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. v. W. Jefferson Hills S.D. ~ Appeal of: Gito, Inc. d/b/a Nello Construction Co.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2023

Even if the agreement has not been reduced to writing, it is still an enforceable agreement if all the essential terms have been established. … First, the trial court’s order enforcing the Settlement Agreement clearly 7 is separate from and collateral to the underlying breach of contract claims among the parties.

Liberty Twp. & Citizens' Env. Assoc. of the Slippery Rock Area v. DEP & Tri-County Landfill, Inc. (EHB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2025

Thus, as pertinent here, the Setback Requirement’s plain language provides that landfill facilities and their necessary accoutrements may not be located in any areas that lie within 10,000 feet of a qualifying airport unless … The Department’s interpretation below therefore was clearly erroneous, and we do not defer to it. b.

M. Bolinger v. Bd. of Commissioners of Manheim Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2021

The Board may require the applicant to submit a traffic study prepared by a qualified traffic engineer to satisfy this requirement. … To say that “historic sites” cannot be included within the definition of “historic resource” simply because the term “historic resource” is not utilized within Section 2406.13 of the Ordinance is clearly erroneous.

Shah v. State Board of Medicine

139 Pa. Commw. 94 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1991

Elmore, 241 Pa.Superior Ct. 470, 476, 362 A.2d 348, 351 (1976). “ ‘[T]he record must clearly show prejudice, bias, capricious disbelief or prejudg *122 ment’ before an abuse of discretion is found.” Pratt v. … Shah met neither requirement to establish laches.

A.D. Hersh v. DOC State Dietitian & PA Correctional Industries

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2024

It tests the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleadings and will be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. … “The purpose of mandamus is not to establish legal rights but only to enforce those legal rights that have already been established.” Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading, Zoning Hearing Bd., 32 A.3d 287, 290 (Pa.

TitleMax of Delaware, Inc. v. Dept. of Banking & Securities

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2026

TitleMax argues that the law of the case doctrine bars reconsideration of 7 that issue and that the ruling established its right to appeal at this stage of the proceedings … C.S. §101, defines “adjudication” as follows: Any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities,

F. Nunez, Jr. v. D. Blough

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2022

Here, the Trial Court determined that Nunez had “clearly” satisfied the first prong of this test, but that his retaliation claim was frivolous because he had failed to surmount the bars established by the three other prongs … Nunez’s filing of such materials was thus clearly a form of constitutionally protected conduct.

Com. v. B.S. Comensky

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2014

The instant matter is clearly distinguishable from Borriello. … The UCC refers to the code established by Section 301 of the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act, Act of November 10, 1999, P.L. 491, as amended, 35 P.S. § 7210.301.

Township of Millcreek v. A. Cres Trust of June 25, 1998

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2019

To evaluate the reasonableness of the Trust’s attorney fees and costs, the trial court considered the factors established in the Supreme Court’s decision in In re LaRocca’s Trust Estate, 246 A.2d 337 (Pa. 1968). … As an experienced litigator and expert on attorney fees, Stroyd was qualified to opine on the reasonableness of the Trust’s fee request.

City of Pittsburgh v. Brentley

925 A.2d 188 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2007

Thus, the Arbitrator determined that the City did not meet its burden of proof for a discharge case because the City failed to establish by a clear and convincing margin of evidence that there was “just cause,” as that term … Rather, the grievance was a challenge to the City’s decision to discharge Grievant, a matter clearly within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator.

Pa. State Sys. of Higher Educ. v. Ass'n of Pa. State Coll. & Univ. Faculties

193 A.3d 486 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2018

The testimony of Grievant's Department Chair showed both that there was a demand for other professors to teach the 100-level courses in which high school students would generally enroll and that Grievant was qualified to … The burden of establishing a violation of public policy rests on the party asserting the public policy exception. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit # 7 , 939 A.2d at 864 .

Twp. of Darby v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2025

This Court determined that, because there was no proper effort to admit them as part of the proceedings under Rule 1951(b), the documents could not qualify as part of the proceedings under Rule 1951(a). … Because Whitaker was the only other individual present during the February 13 incident, her testimony was clearly germane to the case.

J. McWells v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2015

In order to establish cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, a claimant must establish that (1) circumstances existed that produced real and substantial pressure to terminate … Clearly, Claimant’s supervisors’ enforcement of Employer’s policies did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment.

Plum Borough v. ZHB of the Borough of Plum

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2024

The ZHB explained that such use qualifies as “a preexisting nonconforming use because . . . [it] commenced prior to the adoption of the current Ordinance.” … It requires, inter alia, that the applicant “establish by credible evidence that the application complies with all applicable requirements of this Ordinance.” Id., § 405(A)(2).

Brookview Solar I, LLC v. Mount Joy Twp. Bd. of Supers.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2023

For that reason alone, the trial court held Brookview did not qualify for a conditional use. Trial Court Op., 9/2/2022, at 26-27. … When a municipality “receives an incomplete application that precludes meaningful review, it should act clearly and without delay.” Nextel, 958 A.2d at 593.

J.A. Omatick v. Cecil Twp. ZHB v. Cecil Twp. Bd. of Supers.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2022

To do either is not the original nonconforming use around which the zoning law was presumabl[y] designed, but rather a new venture, and new ventures must qualify under existing zoning laws.” Bachman v. … MHL-3  alleged errors are addressed by appellate courts and that courts may only address cases which have reached a procedural posture in which the dispute between the parties is clearly

M. Malone v. WCAB (City of Philadelphia)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2021

Stanford is better qualified to answer the question of whether prostate cancer could be caused by firefighting than Dr. … The Court noted that “epidemiological evidence is clearly relevant and useful in” evaluating general causation at the initial burden stage.

A. Griffis v. WCAB (Albert Einstein Healthcare Network)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2020

This is so because the statute granting subrogation “clearly and unambiguously” provides that the employer “shall be subrogated” to the employee’s right of recovery. . . . … The parent corporation argued it was entitled to immunity, pursuant to the exclusivity provisions of the WC Act, from the third-party suits brought by those employees.

S. Curtician v. DOC Secretary Wetzel

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2020

POs in the nature of a demurrer “should be sustained only in cases that clearly and without a doubt fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Bell v. Township of Spring Brook, 30 A.3d 554, 557 n.7 (Pa. … Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits the infliction of cruel punishments.9 Section 1983 provides that persons acting under color of state law that deprive a citizen of “any rights, privileges, or immunities

Norristown Academy Charter School v. Norristown Area School District

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2023

integrity of the petition process,” and concluded that the secretary of state “erred in its adoption and application of the perfect match rule which resulted in the disqualification of registered electors who were otherwise qualified … Thus, although the 77 addresses the District challenges were not perfect, its own witness established they were sufficient under the CSL.