Case law

T. Williams v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2015

The Department [DOC] will obtain the services of a sufficient number of individuals qualified to administer the lethal injection to ensure that a two- (Footnote … The Protocol has no impact on the general public and, thus, the public need not participate in the establishment of the Protocol.

Protect PT v. Penn Twp. ZHB and Apex Energy (PA), LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2018

established limit of disturbance shall be situated at the access road entrance. … Clearly, those cases, which involved constitutional challenges, are distinguishable in that this case does not involve a constitutional or substantive validity challenge.

L.R. Cicconi, Jr. v. ZHB of Tinicum Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2022

Id. 11  The ZHB clearly ruled that the Zoning Officer “provided credible witness testimony.” R.R. at 23a, 129a. … This Court has explained: To qualify as a continuation of a nonconforming use, the current use must be sufficiently similar to the nonconforming use as not to constitute a new or

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1279 v. PA Labor Relations Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2019

involving statutory interpretation, which are legal questions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated: [A]n administrative agency’s interpretation [of a statute] is to be given controlling weight unless clearly … its relevant field, our Court [has] opined that an appellate court will not lightly substitute its judgment for that of a body selected for its expertise whose experience and expertise make it better qualified

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1279 v. PA Labor Relations Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2019

involving statutory interpretation, which are legal questions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated: [A]n administrative agency’s interpretation [of a statute] is to be given controlling weight unless clearly … its relevant field, our Court [has] opined that an appellate court will not lightly substitute its judgment for that of a body selected for its expertise whose experience and expertise make it better qualified

T. Logan v. WCAB (City of Philadelphia)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2017

(2) The terms ‘injury,’ ‘personal injury,’ and ‘injury arising in the course of his employment,’ as used in this act, shall include, unless the context clearly requires otherwise … Under the WCJ’s erroneous interpretation, Claimant maintains, a firefighter diagnosed with cancer would have to file a claim petition within 300 weeks of the occurrence of the disease in order to qualify for the rebuttable

In re: Contest of November 7, 2023 Election of Towamencin Twp. ~ Appeal of: S.L. Main

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2024

Appellants filed the Petition on December 4, 2023, and it “is, therefore, clearly untimely.” In re Gen. Election for Twp. Supervisor of Morris Twp., Wash. Cnty., 620 A.2d 565, 568 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). … On these facts and in light of the above precedent, Appellants have not established that Common Pleas erred in not granting them nunc pro tunc relief.

D. Cook v. City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 2016

The City filed preliminary objections asserting governmental immunity under 42 Pa. C.S. §§8541-42 against Cook’s intentional tort claims and those based on alleged willful misconduct of City employees. S.R.R. at 75-78. … Cook stated he understood that “very clearly.” Id.

R.C. Culbertson v. PA PUC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2023

We defer to the Commission’s interpretation of the Code and its own regulations unless the Commission’s interpretation is clearly erroneous. Popowsky v. Pa. Pub. Util. … For this reason, the Commission established “guidelines and procedures designed to encourage full and partial settlements as well as stipulations in major section 1308(d) general rate increase cases.”

Valley Forge Chapter of Trout Unlimited v. Township of Tredyffrin and PA Turnpike Commission

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2016

regard to Petitioner’s allegations regarding the SWMA in Count 2 of the Petition for Review, PTC alleges that Petitioner cannot allege harm to the waterways when the Agreement actually reduces runoff, and second that PTC is immune … (3) Does the environmental harm which will result from the challenged decision or action so clearly outweigh the benefits to be derived therefrom that to proceed further would be an abuse of discretion

City of Lebanon v. Cornwall Borough v. Lebanon County Earned Income Tax Bureau

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2016

Appellee Municipalities presented significant expert testimony to establish their right to recovery. … She is a principal in an accounting firm, but admitted that she is not qualified to conduct a financial reconstruction such as the one at issue in this matter.

R. W-M. v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2019

Further, Claimant’s brief clearly raises and discusses this issue. … Grand Sport Auto; Dotson. 21  Relatedly, we distinguish certain cases in which this Court held that despite a claimant’s troublesome attendance history, he may qualify

Hatboro Borough v. Buckingham Retail Properties, LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2020

8 principles of statutory construction related to zoning ordinances and the declaration of legislative intent for the HB District, the Board stated that “Applicant’s proposed use is clearly … argues that the Ordinance does not limit the 12 number of principal uses per property, and the two proposed uses here – a take-out restaurant and gasoline fueling station – qualify

In Re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. -- Appeal of: R. Blume and D. Blume

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2017

stated that Section 3241 “does not restrict the type of corporation eligible to take the subterranean lands of another property owner to only corporations that meet these specific legislatively imposed conditions for them to qualify … Here, the CPCs and Orders clearly establish that the PUC believes a public need for the proposed project exists, and the courts are not permitted to second guess the PUC’s findings.

Hummelstown Swim Club v. Borough of Hummelstown

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2017

When taken together, the Club asserted, Council’s reasons for denying the Plan established that Council acted in bad faith. … Citing Hummelstown I, the Club argues that decision established that Kokomo Avenue is adjacent to, and not a part of, Parcel 8.

The Hon. M. Musti Cook v. The PA LRB & SEIU Local 668 PSSU

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2022

Cmwlth. 1981), the Board was without jurisdiction to review Probation Officer’s discipline based on the doctrine of separation of powers because the unfair labor charge “clearly involved discipline of a court employee.” … bargain collectively with county commissioners, or other management representatives of the courts, concerning the financial terms of employment,” but also acknowledged that “PERA cannot constitutionally be interpreted as immunizing

G. Hudock & G. Hudock, h/w v. Saltlick Twp., PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2022

However, even an otherwise qualified petitioner may be denied intervention if “the intervention will unduly delay, embarrass or prejudice the trial or the adjudication of the rights of the parties.” … An abuse of discretion occurs when the board’s decision shows “manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” Paden v.

F. Lazzarini v. The Board of Supervisors of Bushkill Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2019

The objective criteria do not clearly limit the engine size, engine type, engine number, number of passengers or pilots the helicopters are capable of accommodating, or the incidental presence of non-commercial social guests … Owner’s witness, Norman Dotti, was qualified by the Zoning Board as an expert in the area of sound and vibration management.

K. Parks v. WCAB (Ayers Line Construction, Inc.)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2018

However, it is not necessary that the injured body part be one hundred percent useless in order for the loss of use to qualify as being for all practical intents and purposes. … While a WCJ must render a “reasoned decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence” that “clearly and concisely states and explains the rationale for the decisions,” 77 P.S. §834,2 a “

M. Staton v. WCAB (System One Holdings, LLC)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2020

As for Employer’s fact witnesses, Safety Director and Co-Worker, the WCJ found them credible regarding the events of August 25, 2016, which supported the grant of the Penalty Petition because “clearly Employer had notice … Bases that have been found sufficient include an expert’s opinion being based on erroneous factual assumptions, the expert may be more or less qualified than the opposing party’s expert, the expert “may be impeached with