Case law

A. Abbonizio & C. Abbonizio Contractors, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia & Thomas P. Carney, Inc.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2020

By April 26, 2019 letter, the City informed Appellants that, since Carney was a qualified local business entity (LBE) certified by the Commissioner of the City’s Procurement Department (Department) pursuant to Section 17- … Clearly, the goal of Section 17-109(5)(a) of the Philadelphia Code is to benefit the public, particularly bidders and City taxpayers.

W.E. Webster III v. Lehigh CCP

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2020

In addition, through our case law, we have established “that the term ‘officers,’ for jurisdictional purposes, should encompass only those persons who perform state-wide policymaking functions and who are charged with the … I. 5 clearly directed towards either the Attorney General or the County Judiciary. See Miles v. Beard, 847 A.2d 161, 164 (Pa.

Johnson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

158 Pa. Commw. 76 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1993

Initially, we note that in order to qualify for workmen's compensation benefits, a claimant has the burden of establishing that an employment relationship existed at the time of the injury and that the injury was related … It indicates quite clearly that the claimant was not selling that customer, at least, on his own account, entirely independent of the defendant company, but was acting for and on its behalf.

QRK, LLC v. Kenilworth Court Residents Association, Inc.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2017

A party seeking judicial resolution of a controversy must establish as a threshold matter that it has standing to maintain the action. Johnson v. American Standard, 8 A.3d 318, 329 (Pa. 2010). … The 2011 Amendment clearly runs with the land and binds all future successors in title.

J. Rice v. Spirac USA, Inc. (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2023

Gaber based his opinion: [] [t]he known latency period for the specific bacteria involved; [] [t]he open wound and pre[]existing immune deficiency hastening [C]laimant’s reaction to exposure … “It is well established that the WCJ is the ultimate fact[- ]finder and is empowered to determine witness credibility and evidentiary weight.

E.P. Manson v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2021

stated: Most importantly, although he testified that Claimant’s surgery and cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy were related to the alleged injury, he did not know the specifics of the injury, was not qualified … Petition where “the WCJ completely ignored the fact that [] Employer failed to submit any medical evidence in opposition to the Claim Petition” and “ignored the documentary evidence that was submitted by [] Claimant that clearly

DOC SCI-Chester v. C. Faison (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2021

The WCJ described that, during the interview with Trooper, Claimant is “clearly[,] visibly upset and cries uncontrollably at times when Trooper leaves the room.” (Id.) … Further, Employer argues that this Court in Cantarella rejected that the claimant had been subjected to abnormal working conditions and also any “per se” rule that any specific conduct automatically qualifies as an abnormal

R.C. Thompson, Jr. v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2018

In its order, the trial court noted that it clearly lacked jurisdiction to entertain Licensee’s claims and challenges for alleged injustices that occurred in Cameron County. 3 Our review in a license suspension … Constitution and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Wert v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 821 A.2d 182 (Pa.

P. Navarro v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2015

However, such testimony qualifies as a hearsay exception as an admission by a party opponent. See Pa. R.E. 803(25); Sargent. … “Conduct that is designed to improperly and intentionally mislead the [UC] authorities is sufficient to establish a fault overpayment.” Id.

L.G. Rosa v. SCSC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2022

ing] in concert with the [Department] to attempt to retaliate and deny [him] Commonwealth employment after his [April 2018] termination,” even though he had been informed that reinstatement was possible as long as he was qualified … Section 105.12 of the Commission’s Rules further provides: (b) The person appealing shall state clearly and concisely the: (1) Grounds of the interest of the person in the

G. Davis, Jr. v. Com. of PA, PA Legislature (General Assembly)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 2025

Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 150 A.3d 16 (Pa. 2016) (holding that courts of common pleas, as courts “of the unified judicial system, [are] entitled to the sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth”). 10 Our Supreme … It is clearly not a mistakenly filed PCRA petition against the Commonwealth, which is the only proper party in PCRA proceedings.

J. Ensor v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2025

The law is well established: In order to establish cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, a claimant must establish that (1) after the expiration of the time, without … However, that figure is based only upon the assumption that [] Claimant would qualify for the terms of the [LRAA].

F. Genser & F. Matis v. Butler County Board of Elections

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2024

This objective is advanced by ensuring that each qualified elector has the opportunity to vote exactly once in each primary or election. … In 2019, the General Assembly amended the Code by passing Act 77, which established universal mail-in voting in the Commonwealth, the object of which is to make voting more convenient for qualified electors.

M. Wei v. SCSC (PA Dept. of Health)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2019

No. 1902 C.D. 2016, filed September 1, 2017) (Wei III), establish the following history of this dispute. … Wei worked as an epidemiologist and was the data manager for the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s (Department) human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) epidemiology team.

G. DiPaolo and K. DiPaolo v. ZHB of Bensalem Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2018

violated the Code or the Zoning Ordinance, particularly because Nearon and Takita were not qualified to provide expert testimony. … [] Takita and [] Nearon clearly established their qualifications on the record. [] Takita has held the position of Director of Building and Planning for the Township for

Peace of Mind Habilitative Services, LLC v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2025

Code §§ 6400.1-6400.275, which establishes the minimum requirements to be licensed to operate such homes in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. … only where [the fact-finder] committed an error of 5  law or clearly abused its discretion.

Fegley Mgmt. & Energy LLC v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2020

According to the Board, by using the disparate treatment doctrine, which is an affirmative defense, the Referee placed the burden on Claimant, which was clearly incorrect and resulted in an incorrect conclusion, which the … We held that when an employer tolerates past violations, violation of that rule cannot qualify as willful misconduct. Id. This case is similar to Gordon Terminal and Great Valley Publishing.

Atlantic Wind, LLC v. ZHB of Penn Forest Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2022

If you look at Leq and Lmax, Leq clearly will not provide the range of sound levels needed to assess against shall not exceed. … Clearly the language of the [Ordinance] using [sic] a “shall not exceed” standard in the Ordinance.

In re: Petitions to Open Ballot Box ~ Appeal of: S.C. Dawson

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2023

on appeal On appeal, Petitioners contend (1) the Board did not have standing to file preliminary objections to their petitions, (2) Common Pleas erroneously interpreted Sections 1701 and 1703,7 and (3) they have established … Clearly, if we cannot not rely on the words of members of the General Assembly themselves to deduce legislative intent for the purpose of statutory interpretation, then, a fortiori, a governor’s words of interpretation carry

W. Prater v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2019

[,’] clearly sending a message that – I can do what I want without any repercussions for his actions. … As in Miles: [T]he allegation[s] upon which the equity and [Section] 1983 actions rest are clearly the same. . . .