Case law

Commonwealth v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

73 Pa. Commw. 525 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1983

opposing its establishment as a use prohibited at the location proposed by the municipality’s zoning ordinance. … There the fundamental question was stated to be that of whether the Legislature intended the state agency to be immune from local zoning regulations and the answer to be found by examination of the grant of statutory power

Bird v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

731 A.2d 660 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1999

Bird] and did so to qualify [Mrs. Bird] for MA benefits. … Such transactions, however, may not contravene other regulations that clearly articulate the intent of the MCCA.

Hedglin v. City of Scranton

139 Pa. Commw. 201 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1991

The legislature has clearly prohibited trespassers from obtaining recovery from local agencies. … Exceptions to governmental immunity.

Carlino v. Whitpain Investors

52 Pa. Commw. 145 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1980

Moreover, he must qualify the interest as immediate rather than remote by showing a sufficiently close causal connection between the challenged action and the asserted injury. Wm. Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. … The demurrers raised by the preliminary objections of the township and the developer clearly should also be sustained.

Naylor v. Commonwealth

54 A.3d 429 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2012

Section 432(2)(iii) of the Code clearly delegates power to the Department to establish the amounts of SSP payments, because that section provides that “[i]n establishing the amounts of the State supplemental assistance, the … the manner by which the Department must establish SSP payment amounts.

Board of Trustees v. Commonwealth

33 Pa. Commw. 121 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1977

The Commission found that the male applicant was less' qualified than Ms. Skurnowicz, and we believe' that this finding is supported by substantial evidence. Not only does the record clearly establish that Ms. … The record shows that the salary for the position in question was not set by any established salary schedule because it was considered only temporary and further that salary had never been discussed with Ms. Skurnowicz.

Wetzel v. City of Altoona

152 Pa. Commw. 309 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1992

Moreover, the employment agreement between the City and the District clearly indicates that the City was the employing agency with full control and responsibility for the work site. … Similarly, the City established rules governing the use of hardhats and vests and safety requirements around the construction equipment.

Hess v. Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals

75 Pa. Commw. 69 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1983

The Constitution, instead, authorizes the General Assembly to “establish standards and qualifications for private forest reserves”. (Emphasis added.) … Under the Act, qualifying land must be valued, for taxation purposes, not at its fair market value, but at its present use value. Section 3 of the Aot, 72 P.S. §5490.3.

Cummings v. Commonwealth, State System of Higher Education

860 A.2d 650 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2004

Our Supreme Court has adopted the federal analytical model established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … It is not intended to immunize members of “protected classes” from adverse employment decisions not based on their class membership, protection not enjoyed by others and not granted by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act

Chavez v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

738 A.2d 77 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1999

’ deductible and the complete elimination of coverage for routine examinations and immunizations. … Despite Employer’s argument to the contrary, the question posed in Petitioners' brief is clearly broad enough to encompass this issue.

J. Page v. Hon. T.P. Rogers

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2024

action 31 “Damage suits will be barred unless the plaintiff establishes that the cause of action falls under one of the specifically enumerated legislative exceptions to immunity.” … An inmate may not exceed the property limits established by the Department.

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Commonwealth

70 Pa. Commw. 62 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1982

and that Amtrak continued to seek qualified applicants. … other qualified applicants.

Griffith v. Snader

795 A.2d 502 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2002

immunity has been specifically waived. … Clearly, on this record, Griffith could not have recovered damages against the Township even absent statutory immunity.

Department of Public Welfare v. Schultz

822 A.2d 876 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2003

This action is not, therefore, barred by Sovereign Immunity and the question becomes whether parents have a complementary right to recover the damages that children may recover under Quinn . … Real Estate Management, 564 Pa. 473 , 769 A.2d 444 (2001). [1] Pennsylvania appellate caselaw clearly establishes that loss of consortium is a claim available only to a spouse. Schroeder v.

ROBERTS v. Office of Administration

30 Pa. Commw. 19 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1977

They claim entitlement to promotion to the rank of Corporal, a right which they say they could establish if given a hearing, and contend that to deny them a hearing is a denial of fundamental due process. … Clearly the grievants understood the meaning and scope of the Crime Investigation Specialist program in that they chose to enter voluntarily and that removal or request to transfer would result in being assigned to the uniform

Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Roberts

777 A.2d 1225 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2001

Sunyak to properly plead an equal protection violation, he must establish intentional discrimination because of his membership in a particular class. Here, Mr. … Chester, 797 F.2d 1164 (3rd Cir.1986) to support their proposition that they have pled a viable equal protection claim. 12 That case, however, is clearly distinguishable.

Donaldson v. Com., Dept. of Transp.

141 Pa. Commw. 474 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1991

Donaldson is clearly within the scope of this undertaking, the Evans case shows that Dick’s argument is merit-less. … They first point out that the scaffolding cases involve local governmental immunity as opposed to sovereign immunity.

Carl v. Banks Engineering Co.

106 Pa. Commw. 147 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 1987

Appellants contend that the School Districts liability may fall within the exceptions to immunity in Section 8542 of the Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §8542. … In addition,, the record clearly establishes that the tractor, trailer, driver and supplies for the hayride were provided by Banks.

Pennsylvania Game Commission v. State Civil Service Commission (Taccone)

789 A.2d 839 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2002

Pursuant to Section 101 of the AAL, an adjudication is: Any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations … To answer this question, we must determine: 1) whether the orders of the Civil Service Commission are adjudications of “personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations” of the Game

J.F. Geier, of the Estate of M.M. Geier v. Board of Public Education of the SD of Pittsburgh v. American Art Clay Company, Inc., a/k/a Amaco, Inc.

153 A.3d 1189 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2017

Therefore, Plaintiffs claim they established that their claim would be cognizable under common law. C. … Decedent again testified the word “asbestos” clearly appeared on the bags containing the powder used to make the mixture. Id. at 273-74; R.R. at 161a-62a.