Case law

Berks-Lehigh Regional Police Officers Association v. Upper Macungie Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2018

Rader stated that Upper Macungie received over 70 other employment applications from individuals outside of the Department but chose to give preference to Department police officers because they were better qualified for … In response, the Association appears to argue that Paragraph 1 of the CBA, entitled “Duration of Agreement,” clearly establishes that the CBA was a 3-year contract, and, therefore, Swift v.

The Gun Range, LLC v. City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2018

The Table clearly established that a gun shop was not permissible within a CMX-2 district . . . .” (Trial court op. at 5.) … Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 997 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Gun laws ‘need not mirror limits that were on the books in 1791’ or 1868 to qualify as presumptively lawful. . . .

Newman & Co., Inc. v. M. Warner (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2023

The claimant bears the burden of establishing he gave the employer timely notice of the injury under Section 311. City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Williams), 851 A.2d 838 (Pa. 2004). … Benefits Calculation The Board determined that Health Care Builders did not qualify as a “concurrent employer” because it was not Claimant’s employer at the time of injury.

G.S. Person v. PSP Megan's Law Section

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2015

burden of proof to prove his allegations; SORNA, like all duly enacted acts passed by the General Assembly, enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality and “‘a statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly … I, § 17 (stating that “[n]o ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligations of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed”).

Nestle USA, Inc./Vitality v. WCAB (Gallen)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2017

If the causal connection is not obvious, the causal connection must be established by unequivocal medical testimony. Id. … Peck’s testimony is equivocal and insufficient to establish causation.

Com. of PA v. D. Litman

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 2022

[6] Any accessory structure permitted under this section shall comply with the setbacks established for accessory buildings in the district in which the accessory … Landowners’ failure to appeal to the Zoning Board rendered the Township’s violation notice immune from any attack, even on constitutional grounds.

Int'l Chapter of Horseshoers and Equine Trades, Local 947 v. PA State Horse Racing Commission (PA Dept. of Ag.)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2017

Id. at ¶18.6 Specifically, the Union asserts: “individuals whose qualifications are uncertain (and unproven) are competing for jobs with the Union’s well-qualified and tested members”; “horses at thoroughbred racetracks in … Clearly, the young people graduated from ADIO have become the victims of this dispute among their professional elders.

P. Kesarkar v. Birmingham Twp. ~ Appeal of: P. Kesarkar

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2021

There is no evidence establishing that the Anastasiadises ever sent notice to the Kesarkars via first-class mail. Meanwhile, the Subdivision Plan continued through the governmental review process. … Third, Rule 5002(g) clearly tracks the discretionary authority that courts of common pleas possess in this type of situation.

Vista Health Plan, 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. … description of the particular documents withheld, other than DHS’s general description that the records constitute evaluation committee records, this Court is unable to assess whether all records responsive to the Request qualify

D. Cardona v. WCAB (Pleasant Valley Manor)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2018

Shipkin, which the WCJ found credible, constituted sufficient evidence establishing that Claimant had fully recovered from her work injuries. … Shipkin was testifying outside of his expertise, we have previously held that “an expert medical witness in a workers’ compensation proceeding is qualified to testify outside of his medical specialty, and any objection to

Reed Shaffer Construction and Donegal Mutual Ins. Co. v. G. Smith (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2022

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. … Because the WCJ’s credibility determinations were clearly supported by the record, this Court may not disturb them. See Verizon Pa. Inc.; see also Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist.

In Re: Condemnation of the Twp. of Robinson ~ Appeal of: E&R Partners, L.P.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2023

In the 5-4 decision, the majority concluded that economic development qualified as a public purpose because, although the properties to be taken were not blighted, the economic rejuvenation of the development was in the public … Middletown Township did not establish that a condemnor must prepare a written development plan before it can exercise the power of eminent domain.

A. Gardiner v. City of Philadelphia

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2023

The “reasonably” qualifier is important: there is no ambiguity if one of the two proffered meanings is unreasonable. Trizechahn Gateway LLC v. Titus, 976 A.2d 474, 483 (Pa. 2009). … “It is [also] well established that the intent of the parties to a written contract is to be regarded as being embodied in the writing itself, and when the words are clear and unambiguous the intent is to be discovered only

E. Myrick v. R. Torres

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2017

Pursuant to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .…” U.S. CONST. amend. … Because Myrick’s claim arises under the state and federal constitutions, and relates to conditions of his life in prison, it qualifies as “prison conditions litigation.”

J. Hoekstra & J. Hoekstra v. Amity Twp. ZHB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2025

Rather, “multiple factors are to be taken into account” when assessing whether unnecessary hardship has been established. Id. … that end, Section 32-501(a) of the Ordinance states: Use of the provisions of Route 422 Overlay [District] may be permitted as a development option, provided a site meets the following qualifying

K.A. Finck v. Union County Commissioners (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2023

Given legal developments since then, however, we must qualify that statement, and now litigants have a right to effective assistance of counsel in certain other proceedings. … In addition to establishing that proven incompetency may amount to “cause shown” to warrant a rehearing under Section 426, Johnson established that an attorney’s mere misjudgment about a strategic choice, which it described

Keystone Nursing & Rehab of Reading, LLC v. D. Simmons-Ritchie

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 2020

Nevertheless, we ultimately concluded that the MCOs failed to establish that such rates constituted trade secrets under the Trade Secrets Act. … However, such redactions are clearly required, as recognized by Requesters’ concession at argument, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Prince.

D. Glaser v. WCAB (DOC)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2018

Rather, Claimant asserts, his medical expert clearly testified that his current condition is a work-related aggravation of his previous military injury. … In addition, an expert witness may be unqualified or less qualified than the opposing party’s expert; or may be impeached with inconsistencies or contradictions in his or her testimony

S. Schock v. WCAB (Brown's Super Stores)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2017

In addition, an expert witness may be unqualified or less qualified than the opposing party’s expert; or may be impeached with inconsistencies or contradictions in his or her testimony … Employer further argues that Furey’s testimony “was not taken to establish substantive facts … [but] to establish procedural facts.” Id. at 48.

W.K. Baker v. DEP

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2017

Code § 250.2(c) (“To qualify for liability protection under the act, a person conducting remediation shall comply with this chapter and the act.”). 20  DEP collected … (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?