Case law

M. Olmo v. Com. of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2022

Cmwlth. 2010) (holding that sovereign immunity bars all actions other than mandamus where the petitioner seeks to compel a Commonwealth agency to act). … Mandamus is not used to establish legal rights, but to enforce rights that are “already established beyond peradventure.” Lawrence v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 941 A.2d 70, 72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

M. Terrick v. Munhall Sanitary Sewer Municipal Authority

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2018

Clearly, absent the contract, the Authority would have had the power to discharge the appellee summarily. … Such language clearly precludes a claim for promissory estoppel because an employee 12  cannot meet all of the required elements to establish

Dr. Susan Kegerise v. Kathy L. Delgrande

147 A.3d 930 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2016

Clearly, a constructive discharge action is assessed by an objective standard. Connors v. … qualified as a fitting response.”

East Rockhill Twp. v. East Rockhill Twp. ZHB & J. Burkey ~ Appeal of: J. Burkey

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2019

parked in an enclosed structure. 16  Upon review, Landowner is not entitled to a variance from this provision because, as discussed above, his business use does not qualify … Landowner claims that he established the criteria for a variance.

L. Volpe v. PSERB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2017

PSERS told SDP that PSERS expected that in subsequent years SDP would fill these tutor positions with qualified non-retirees. … applicant rather than the best-qualified retiree applicant.

M.A. Beech Corp. v. WCAB (Mann)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2017

from operating aerial man lifts and, consequently, failed to establish that Decedent knew of such a rule. … The change provided that an inspector was to use the contractor who provided the equipment and its qualified operator.

F. Boyd v. PBPP

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2022

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. … Additionally, Section 6137(a)(1) of the Parole Code declares: The [B]oard may parole subject to consideration of guidelines established under [Section 2154.5 of the Sentencing Code,

Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2024

“The requirement to file post-trial motions postpones the finality of a case-ending decision or order that otherwise would qualify as a final order triggering a right to appeal under the final order rule embodied in [Pennsylvania … [Rather, t]he General Assembly must clearly show its intent to preempt a field in 10 which it has legislated.” Council of Middletown Twp., Delaware Cnty. v.

E. Myers & Youth Sentencing & Reentry Project v. PA DOC (OOR)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2025

At issue is whether the Department met its burden of establishing that the responsive policy is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the RTKL’s public safety exception. … They further maintain that the Department failed to meet its burden because the proffered threats to public safety from disclosing the Policy are not only speculative but belied by data regarding those who might qualify for

D.E. Merriwether v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2017

More specifically, the Department argues that: (1) Merriwether did not establish sufficient non-negligent circumstances to qualify for an appeal nunc pro tunc; and (2) she did not proceed with reasonable diligence once she … The exception of an appeal nunc pro tunc due to non-negligent circumstances is meant to apply only in “unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly established that she attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable

N.K. Yarnell v. Centre County Grange Encampment & Fair

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2025

course of dealing supporting [Yarnell’s] qualified right to renew the Yarnell Site” provided that she had not violated any of the Grange Fair’s rules. … We cannot conclude, clearly and without a doubt, that Yarnell has no legally cognizable interest in the annual renewal of the lease to the Yarnell Site, based on the facts alleged in the complaint.

In Re: of TCB-Judicial Sale ~ Appeal of: Seneca Leandro View, LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2023

the language of its notices was in strict compliance with the Law’s requirements; and (3) establish that its publication in the County Legal Journal was done within 30 days before the sale. … She asserted that “[a]t no point was she offered or notified of the fact that she had qualified for a payment plan under [Section 603 of the Law,] 72 P.S. §5860.603.” Id. at 82a.

R. Vasquez v. Berks County

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2022

be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable … A government policy or custom can be established in two ways.

T.J. Greco & G Net Commco., Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre & Red. Auth. of City of Wilkes-Barre

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2021

established that she attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable and unavoidable events precluded her from actually doing so. … Super.] 1985) (although death of appellant’s attorney may have qualified as a non-negligent circumstance, appellant failed to prove that he attempted to appeal on time but was precluded

DOC v. B. Fiorillo

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2017

The inability to establish any of the three elements bars application of the exemption. Pa. Dep’t of Educ. v. Bagwell, 114 A.3d 1113, 1123 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). … They are internal to Department staff and clearly took place prior to any decision regarding what course of action the Department would take in response to the report; thus, they are predecisional.

New Garden Twp. v. Artesian Resources Corp., Inc.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2019

Indeed, the Township maintains, not only did the evidence establish the well and water main assets on the property were outside the geographic territory of Artesian PA’s CPC, but, more importantly, the evidence established … Clearly, decisions regarding approval of affiliated interest agreements require special expertise that resides within the PUC. Id.

K. Mwambu v. Monroeville Volunteer Fire Co. 4

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2022

SIMS: Why wouldn’t he qualify as a representative of the party? He is a party. THE COURT: No, no, no, no, no. … This is clearly work product and not subject to discovery. Id. at 9.

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.

R.C. Culbertson v. PA PUC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2024

Id. at 18. 2 There is no dispute that Columbia qualifies as both a “public utility” and “natural gas distribution company” pursuant to Sections 102 and 2202 of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa.C.S. … In conducting such review, we defer to the Commission’s interpretation of both the Code and its own regulations unless such interpretation is clearly erroneous. Popowsky v.

Tredyffrin Outdoor, LLC v. ZHB of Tredyffrin Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2023

Second, Outdoor maintained that the zoning officer had erroneously determined that the Sign did not qualify as a changeable copy sign. Id. at 176a. … The Zoning Board’s construction violates well-established statutory construction principles.