Case law

PHFA v. D. Cruel & Cruel & Associates, LLC (OOR)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2026

To determine whether a request is sufficiently specific, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Court established a three-prong test “examining the extent to which the request sets forth[:] (1) the subject matter of the request; (2) … Given the listed dates and summary, the Request clearly sets forth the parameters for the Requested Items.

R. Williams v. PBPP

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2021

Non-negligent circumstances justify nunc pro tunc relief “only in unique and compelling cases in which the [petitioner] has clearly established that [he] attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable and unavoidable events … To the extent Williams invites 9 us to depart from our well-established doctrine regarding nunc pro tunc relief, we decline to do so.

Green 'N Grow Composting, LLC & S.R. Lehman v. Martic Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 2019

itself, and are then processed into a new or different material, including compost, the new or different material must be used to benefit the property itself, as opposed to being transported or used off-site, in order to qualify … of compost a normal agricultural operation” and noted that, “[w]hile undisputedly fertilizer can be used and applied in an agricultural setting to enhance crop yields or growth, this does not transform what is otherwise clearly

Vista Health Plan, Inc. v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2018

In turn, “clarify” is defined as “to explain clearly,” to “make understandable,” or “to make less complex or less ambiguous.” … We conclude that Peoples’ Petition clearly sets forth the matter for our appellate review; therefore, we must sustain the demurrer.

A.D. Brown v. J.M. Civera

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2019

A party seeking disqualification of a trial judge bears the burden of producing evidence establishing bias, prejudice, or unfairness necessitating recusal. Commonwealth v. Perry, 364 A.2d 312 (Pa. 1976). … These allegations are mere recitations of unfavorable rulings against Brown, and clearly fail to satisfy the necessary burden. See Feingold v. Hill, 521 A.2d 33, 39-40 (Pa.

F.M. Burock v. SCSC (Office of the Budget)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 2021

“The purpose of [Act 71] is to create and sustain a modern merit system of employment within the Commonwealth workforce that promotes the hiring, retention and promotion of highly qualified individuals, ensuring that government … Citing Baker’s testimony explaining Burock’s July 2018 interim EPR ratings, as well as testimony of Baker and Cameron regarding weekly meetings with Burock, the Commission determined that Burock “clearly knew his work performance

In re: Appeal of Prestige Design on Jefferson LLC v. Bd. of Rev. of Taxes Philadelphia ~ Appeal of: Prestige Design on Jefferson LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2025

The City of Philadelphia (City) offers property tax abatement for certain construction projects; it is undisputed that to qualify for abatement, an application for abatement must be submitted to the City’s Office of Property … Instead of appealing to Common Pleas from the 2020 dismissal at that time and seeking nunc pro tunc relief, Prestige on Jefferson attempted to appeal from the Board’s 2023 emails declining to entertain what was clearly an

M. Harold v. Abate Irwin, Inc. (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2022

In Gibson, our Supreme Court addressed the General Assembly’s enactment in 1978 of sovereign immunity after it had been abrogated by a Court decision earlier that year. Id. at 81. … For these reasons, we conclude that Claimant has not established a vested right in his post-Protz-pre-Act 111 TTD status.

D. Donlon v. WCAB (County of Bucks)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2015

While [Employer] was clearly aware of the July 24, 2012 incident, Claimant made specific efforts to keep secret the need for any counseling or psychiatric treatment related to the event. … Fenichel more credible were clearly articulated in the WCJ’s Decision. (FOF ¶ 16.) According to the WCJ, Dr.

Forty Foot Farms v. PA Turnpike Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2021

The Commission argued that Oeste was not qualified to render an opinion regarding how the Trial Court would rule on the aforementioned statutory appeals, had provided no methodological basis in his Report for his conclusions … The new report clearly had to be within the confines of the [Trial C]ourt’s May 18, 2017[] order which precluded speculation on how the [T]rial [C]ourt would have ruled on the zoning

GGNSC Administrative Services, LLC v. WCAB (Patrice)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2016

Cmwlth 2016) (“[t]he WCJ’s evidentiary findings are not, however, immune from review.”). … Accordingly, Employer’s Expert’s opinion was contrary to established facts.

Water's Edge at Wind Gap, LLC v. ZHB Moore Twp. and Moore Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2025

Additionally, Site Plan 1 clearly depicts an emergency access road that Applicant intends to construct to provide emergency vehicle access to the [Property]. 145. … Appellees argue that to qualify as a steep slope, an area need only be subject to heightened amounts of runoff, and there is no certain amount of runoff or erosion required.

B. Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2024

Designated Appellees are qualified electors who are registered to vote in Pennsylvania and live in Philadelphia. … In considering this issue, we begin with the well- established principle that “‘acts passed by the General Assembly are strongly presumed to be constitutional.’” Cmwlth. v.

J. Roman v. WCAB (Tri State Enterprises, LLC)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2021

The WCJ further found that the evidence did not establish Claimant suffered the additional injuries he alleged. Id. … Amann’s testimony was incompetent and equivocal because he qualified his opinions with phrases such as “I believe.” Id. at 18.

J.L. Hawkins v. Adult Probation & Collections Unit, Com. of PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 2025

“A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer . . . 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 … The action established in [the PCRA] shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose

J.T. Olt v. Bureau of Driver Licensing

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2019

That’s clearly hearsay testimony which would need [Corporal] Rymarkiewicz [sic] to testify. THE COURT: It’s overruled. … [Trooper Kleeman’s] state of mind, i.e., to establish that [he] had reasonable grounds to believe Licensee was [under the influence of a controlled substance].”

R. Rogers v. City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2016

By doing so, Appellant misconstrues the trial court’s decision, which clearly found his evidence, whether circumstantial or direct, insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact, i.e., that Allied had any sort … Therefore, this document fails to qualify as an “affidavit” that can be part of the record for summary judgment purposes. See Pa.R.C.P.

UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2018

Cmwlth. 2016) (Bagwell III), we considered the sufficiency of affidavits to establish the attorney-work-product privilege. … Otherwise, OOR’s final determination clearly and accurately refers to the Request at hand.

W. Simpkins v. WCAB (Human Achievement Project, Inc.)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2016

The fact that the Majority qualifies Employer’s Expert’s testimony and prefaces how to interpret that testimony reveals that Employer’s Expert’s testimony standing alone does not support the Majority’s interpretation of the … failed to provide testimony clearly explaining and evidencing Claimant’s recovery from all of the work-related injuries found by the WCJ, it failed to meet its burden.

Transource PA, LLC, & PPL Electric Utilities Corp. v. PA PUC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2022

Accordingly, this is not a reason to find that the Commission’s determination was clearly erroneous. C. Evidentiary Claims 1. … reason, OCA’s evidence revealed that prior to 2014, PJM considered the negative impacts in its benefit calculation but removed this from the cost-benefit analysis in order to “increase[] the number of projects that could qualify