Case law

J.R. Anthony, Sr. v. SCSC (Torrance State Hospital)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2018

Appointing Authority responds that Petitioner’s testimony falls short of establishing a prima facie claim for discrimination and, even if he had established such a claim, it had merit-based, i.e., good cause, reasons for … See Henderson, 560 A.2d at 864 (holding that the petitioner established a prima facie case by presenting evidence that he was African American, was removed from a probationary position for which he was qualified, none of

A. Nguyen & K. Pham v. Delaware County TCB & C. Neumann ~ Appeal of: C. Neumann

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2020

Likewise, a ‘direct’ interest 3 “Our scope of review in tax sale cases is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, rendered a decision with a lack of supporting evidence, or clearly … demonstrated by Husak, whether [the executrix] had standing to challenge the tax sale is based upon whether she had the requisite substantial, direct, and immediate interest in the sale of property to qualify

Borough of Parkesburg v. J.M. Rzonca

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2018

C.S. § 101 (defining “adjudication” as “[a]ny final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations of any or … [t]hat failure to comply with the notice within the time specified, unless extended by appeal to the [ZHB], constitutes a violation, with possible sanctions clearly described.”

H. Mazurak v. WCAB (Gillin and Sons Contracting, Inc.)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2016

for total disability under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides may not qualify for total disability under a subsequent edition. … it does not violate the Constitution and stating that the party challenging a statute’s constitutionality has a “very heavy burden” in overcoming the presumption; specifically, the challenger must show that the statute “clearly

Uwchlan Twp., PA v. Uwchlan Twp. Police Ass'n

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2020

It is well-established that an arbitrator’s powers are limited. Pa. State Police v. Pa. State Troopers Ass’n (Smith), 741 A.2d 1248, 1252 (Pa. 1999). … See Manual §§ 8.8, 9.3.5; R.R. at 481a, 490a.11 Because the Board’s decision to terminate Officer Kline affected his pay, Officer Kline clearly had a right to appeal that decision.

People's Property, LLC and Annie Marie, LLC v. Lower Nazareth Twp. ZHB and Lower Nazareth Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2025

Such covenants are “not favored in the law” and must be “strictly construed;” further, they may not be “extended by implication unless the parties clearly so understand and intend.” … A restrictive covenant must be “strictly construed” and is “not to be extended by implication unless the parties clearly so understand and intend.” Sandyford Park Civic Association, 152 A.2d at 900.

L.C. Bullock v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2017

I, § 1. 8  “In order to establish that the [Department] violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, [Bullock] must establish that he has been deprived … “Together, [Article 1, Section 1 and Article 1, Section 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution] are understood to establish a right to equal protection of the laws equivalent to that established in the United States

J. Silbaugh v. WCAB (Penn Line Corp.)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2019

He returned to work on September 4, 2012, and worked until May 19, 2013, when he left his employment to care for a sick family member and did not have enough time working for Employer to qualify for leave under the Family … The Board distinguished Zon on the basis that, in Zon, the parties clearly contemplated that the claimant would work anywhere required by the employer’s business needs.

Com. of PA, DEP v. Grant Twp. of Indiana County & The Grant Twp. Bd. of Supers.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2020

We cannot say at this time that the Counterclaims asserted in Counts 3 and 4 are so clearly without merit that they must be preliminarily dismissed. … (App., ¶28.) 10 Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 10101-11202. 6 statutes and should refrain from doing so consistent with well-established

In Re: Condemnation of Easement and Right of Way Across lands of C.R. and T.L. Lauchle, by UGI Penn Natural Gas, Inc.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2016

In opposition, UGI argued that it qualified for the public utility exemption under Section 204(b) of PRPA. 26 Pa.C.S. §204(b). … . §204(b)(2)(i), clearly states that the prohibition in Section 204(a) against “tak[ing] private property in order to use it for a private enterprise,” does not apply when “(2) the property is taken by, to the extent the

Beaver County Behavioral Health v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2016

“To become a Waiver provider, a qualified provider must meet certain qualifications, enroll in the 2 Promise billing system, register with the Home and Community Services Information … However, given the Department’s interpretation of its Regulations, the BHA, as it was free to do, clearly assigned more weight to Rudolph’s testimony, evidencing the “considerations the Department examined to arrive at its

S. Matakovich v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2017

As stated by the Referee and incorporated into the Board’s decision, “[t]he video evidence clearly demonstrates that [C]laimant engaged in assault and excessive force against an actor engaged in passive resistance to [C]laimant … Here, there is substantial evidence establishing that Claimant committed willful misconduct by violating Employer’s policies and procedures.

In re: Appeal of Merion Ridge, LLC ~ Appeal of: Merion Ridge, LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2024

Borough’s Engineer, who was qualified as an expert in civil engineering, land development, and planning and zoning, testified as follows. … The Board argues any hardship here is self-created by Merion Ridge, which proposed a plan on a property that does not otherwise qualify for it.

M. Hudson, D. Lippert and J. Mellott v. DEP (Environmental Hearing Board)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2023

“The exception for allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc in non-negligent circumstances is meant to apply only in unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly established she attempted to file an appeal, … Wise, 781 A.2d 1156, 1160 (Pa. 2001) (“The exception for allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc in non-negligent circumstances is meant to apply only in unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly established

In re: Appeal of 1406 Properties, LLC ~ Appeal of: 1406 Properties, LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 2024

(d) Restaurant, cafe or similar establishment. [1] Restaurant shall not contain drive-in facilities. … [5] Customer and employee parking areas are clearly identified and not used for vehicle display purposes. 8  [6] Except for incidental emergency

A.D. Brown v. M. Zaken

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2019

prison conditions litigation is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or the defendant is entitled to assert a valid affirmative defense, including immunity … Cmwlth. 2006) (“Brown is a well-qualified abusive litigator within the meaning of the PLRA.”); Brown v. James, 822 A.2d 128, 131 (Pa.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting by PA DEP v. Monsanto Co., Solutia Inc. and Pharmacia LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2021

Clearly, that presented a much more remote circumstance than those before this Court, where Plaintiffs allege that the marketed uses of the PCB products themselves created the nuisance. … Finally, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs may not recover economic losses in tort absent physical injury or damage to Commonwealth-owned property, and Plaintiffs’ claimed damages to the public treasury do not qualify as such

M.C. Romig v. J. Wetzel

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2022

I. 8 The Fourteenth Amendment states, in pertinent part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person … . §§8541-42. 6 have been clearly established. Id. Ordinarily, “mandamus is not a proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute, regulation or policy.”

In re: Condemnation by the General Mun. Auth. of the City of Nanticoke ~ Appeal of: L.D. Nardozzo

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2025

Clearly if the entire parcel is required in order to construct the planned building which would encompass a full city block, the taking was not “excessive.” … It is true that the mere possession of discretionary power by an administrative body does not make it wholly immune from judicial review, but the scope of that review is

S. Landes, PH.D. v. Bureau of WC Fee Review Hearing Office (Vigilant Ins. Co.)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2020

Psychotherapy is defined as the following in full in the 2013 CPT Manual as: the treatment of mental illness and behavioral disturbances in which the physician or other qualified healthcare … descriptions, and not the services rendered, were “almost exactly the same” was discredited, as Hearing 9 Officer Pickens found that the definitions for the Original and 2013 Codes clearly