Case law

J. Abraham v. Bur. of Prof. and Occ. Affairs, State Board of Psychology

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2014

In the June 6, 2011 e-mail, the BEI investigator also stated that the Respondent [Petitioner] seems to be a ‘very qualified Psychologist’ . . . . 25. … Third, the record clearly established that Petitioner was a resident of Pennsylvania and his counseling business was situated in Pennsylvania. In fact, Petitioner admitted that he was a resident of Pennsylvania.

F. Vernic DBA SF Rehabitat v. Lincoln General Ins. Co., in Liquidation

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2020

This longstanding rule established through case law does not require a finding of bad faith. … No subclasses shall be established within any class. ....

J.J. Sweda v. Upper Bucks County Technical School (Dept. of Ed.)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2024

Testimony offered by both parties over the course of the six-day hearing established the following facts. … We agree that Policy 317 clearly prohibits profane and abusive language.

J.E. Karwatski v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2017

The Referee concluded that the testimony of Employer’s witnesses met this burden of proving that Claimant’s conduct qualified as willful misconduct under the Law and that there was no evidence of record to show Claimant had … Nunc pro tunc relief is generally reserved for only those “unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly established that she attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable and unavoidable events precluded

The Preserve at Blue Ridge, LLC v. Dorrance Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2020

Zoning Ordinance §1602. 13  Developer agrees that, under Section 1602 of the Zoning Ordinance, a golf course does not qualify as a “principal” permitted use. … The Trial Court stated that: [Developer] is not constructing a commercial golf course in an already established PRD. Rather, [Developer] is constructing a PRD near a golf course on the same property.

R. Stockton v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2016

Stockton contends that case law establishes that the defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies is waived if it is not properly preserved. See Smith v. … First, Stockton was clearly aware of the exhaustion requirement, regardless of DOC’s failure to raise the defense in its pleadings.

Shaler Twp. v. ZHB of Shaler Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2025

Cases presenting mootness problems are those that involve litigants who clearly had standing to sue at the outset of the litigation. … “Spot zoning must be clearly established; if the validity of the rezoning ordinance is debatable, it must be permitted to stand.” Id.

D. Morgan v. SEPTA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2016

The burden is on the party introducing the evidence to establish this similarity before the evidence is admitted. Lockley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 5 A.3d 383, 395 (Pa. … See Pa.R.E. 607(b) (“The credibility of a witness may be impeached by any evidence relevant to that issue”); Pa.R.E. 803.1, Comment (“An inconsistent statement of a witness that does not qualify as an exception to the hearsay

Caln-Nether Co., LP v. ZHB of Thornbury Twp. & Thornbury Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2021

Caln-Nether faults the ZHB for using other minimum requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance of 1950 to “contrive” an otherwise unidentified minimum lot requirement that was neither established by that ordinance in fact … Caln-Nether, thus, argues that the ZHB’s finding that the Property is a “small lot” was clearly in error and was not supported by substantial evidence, as determined by the trial court. 14 “An ordinance

D. Soland v. ZHB of E. Bradford Twp. ~ Appeal of: J. Marshall & D. Gans-Marshall

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2020

Applicants argue the emphasized language above clearly establishes that written notice is not a mandatory requirement that would impede the ZHB’s jurisdiction to hear and decide a matter. … This language is not qualified by the number of individuals who did not receive notice.

Snyder Brothers, Inc. v. PA PUC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2020

A general statement of policy, on the other hand, does not establish a ‘binding norm.’ . . . . … The decisions of the United States Supreme Court clearly establish that a person has a due process right to challenge the validity of an administrative order affecting his affairs without being forced to pay excessive penalties

J. Schott v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2022

We conclude that Employer established that county residency was material to the qualifications for the Budget Director position. … Moreover, Claimant’s representation in his application that he resided in Boothwyn might have encouraged Employer to hire Claimant over other qualified candidates for the position.

A. Bailey v. Pyramid Health Holdings, LLC (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2024

However, [ ] Claimant has not met her burden to establish . . . that her disability beginning May 2, 2019 is related to that injury. … All parties to an adjudicatory proceeding are entitled to a reasoned decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence as a whole which clearly

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 … Burock’s Brief at 6 & 9.11 Burock further contends that “e[-]mails in the record clearly show 8 Our scope of review of a determination of the Commission is limited to determining whether constitutional rights

R.L. Ford Contractor and Flagship Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Petersen)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2018

I acknowledge that Claimant is not credible with regard to his work capacity near the close of the record because he clearly was able to work in some capacity … Sensiba “was sufficiently qualified to render an opinion regarding a knee condition” and had been acting as Claimant’s treating physician, whereas Dr. Ruht had treated Claimant on only one occasion.

M. McCormick v. WCAB (Stuart Dean Co., Inc.)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2019

The WCJ denied the Claim Petitions on the basis that Claimant did not establish that he suffered a disabling work-related injury. … Gordon was “highly qualified;” adequately explained his interpretation of diagnostic testing; and reviewed various records. (Id. ¶ 16.i.)

In the Matter of: Condemnation of Rights of Way and Easements Situate in the Twp. of Hempfield ~ Property of: E.C. & B.B. Hurst

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2023

Super. 2017) (Retina).11 “If the [plain] language of the statute clearly and unambiguously sets forth the legislative intent, it is the duty of the court to apply that intent and not look beyond the statutory language to … In relevant part, the Protection Act provides that a condemnor cannot condemn private property for a private 20 Condemnees also challenge whether certain third parties would qualify as a singular “private

C. Collins v. City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2020

Consequently, the Supreme Court in Lamp qualified the rule, intending “to avoid a situation where the plaintiff commences an action but, by failing to make a good-faith effort to notify the defendant, retains exclusive control … “Summary judgment may only be granted when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the record clearly demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving

S. Feldman v. Superior Products Support, LLC (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2023

Bromberg observed that Claimant guarded his arm against his body to prevent anything from touching it, and Claimant was clearly uncomfortable. See R.R. at 289a. Dr. … Although the WCJ issued a detailed decision summarizing the evidence presented, he clearly based his decision, at least in part, on Dr.

William P. Corbett, Inc. v. WCAB (Gauthier)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2017

Cmwlth. 1998) (holding that a claimant who voluntarily leaves employment because he no longer had adequate transportation did not qualify for workers’ compensation benefits because the reason for his loss of earning power … As we have explained, when an employer becomes aware of a claimant’s injury, even though the claimant did not file a claim petition, the employer “clearly [is] required to file an NCP or NCD within 21 days of receiving notice