Case law

Brown v. Community College of Philadelphia

654 A.2d 32 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1994

. § 762(a)(7) dealing with governmental immunity waiver, which is clearly not involved in this case. … In fact, the Community College Act defines community college as a college established and operated by “a local sponsor.” 24 P.S. § 19-1901-A(4).

Senator Jay Costa v. Sec. Pedro A. Cortes

142 A.3d 1004 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2016

Miller, 85 A. 457, 459 (Pa. 1912) (“The established rules of construction applicable to statutes apply also in the construction of a Constitution.”). … Cmwlth. 1980) (opining that “a court will not consider a constitutional issue unless it is clearly necessary to do so to dispose of the case before it”). 21  Clearly

KIPP Philadelphia Charter Schools v. PA, Department of Education and Pedro A. Rivera, in his official capacity as Secretary of Education

161 A.3d 430 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2017

However, Chester II is clearly distinguishable from the current case and is limited to its particular facts. … The purpose of mandamus is to enforce rights that have been clearly established. Tindell v. Dep’t of Corr., 87 A.3d 1029, 1034 (Pa.

Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove

119 A.3d 1102 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2015

The Rozier Affidavit establishes that there are two PSP video recordings responsive to Requester’s RTKL request. (Rozier Affidavit ¶ 9.) … Because the troopers clearly had reason to believe that they were being recorded by their MVR equipment, audio recordings capturing their communications *1111 are not protected from disclosure by the Wiretap Act.

Tribune-Review Publishing Co. v. Department of Community & Economic Development

751 A.2d 689 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2000

To establish a document as a public record that constitutes a “minute, order or decision,” the person seeking the information must establish that the requested material 1) is generated by an agency covered under the Act; … Cmwlth. 609, 309 A.2d 75 (1973) (list of persons who had taken the examination to qualify as certified public accountants).

In Re Estate of Leitham

726 A.2d 1116 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1999

The Department argues that these sections do not present strict statutes of limitation beyond which the Department may not act. 2 The statute clearly permits some action beyond the mandated times periods, but it also unambiguously … The undisputed facts of this case amply establish the essential elements of es-toppel by laches.

Ersek v. Springfield Township

160 Pa. Commw. 79 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1993

In the instant case, Township and Ersek entered into a *84 lease agreement on October 15, 1963. 3 Township asserts that when read in its entirety, the language contained within the four corners of the lease clearly establishes … An inference from words of general import cannot establish such indemnification. Id.

Friends of Marconi Plaza v. J. Kenney

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2026

As to the Mayor, the trial court determined he qualified as a “high public official,” entitled to absolute immunity from Friends’ claims under Pennsylvania common law. Id. at 7. … Additionally, as observed by the trial court, under well-established common law, “high public officials” have long enjoyed “absolute immunity from all civil lawsuits for damages arising from actions they took within the scope

Allied Services for the Handicapped, Inc. v. Zoning & Hearing Board

73 Pa. Commw. 558 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1983

The subject legal' opinion determined that the' petition of the Allied Services for the Handicapped to establish a group home at 2320 Durkin Ave., Scranton,. Pa. was in effect a petition for a“ Special Use”. … Clearly, this decision does not constitute an opinion in compliance with the requirements of Section 908(9) of the Code.

East Allegheny School District v. Secretary of Education

145 Pa. Commw. 477 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1992

In our view the Secretary’s interpretation of Sections 6.31 and 339.21 of its own regulations is not clearly erroneous and is in accordance with the overall scheme established by the School Code and the Department’s regulations … Forbes Road East AVTS, being an extension of the educational program of the participating school districts, extends this right to any student of the participating districts who qualifies, subject to quotas established for

Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Human Relations Commission

5 Pa. Commw. 329 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 1972

We do not declare, despite the great body of law referred to, that utilities are immune from regulation by other agencies. … The Public Utility Code clearly prohibits discrimination in rates and services for whatever reason and just as clearly empowers the PUC to hear and decide such complaints.

In Re the Appeal of Archdiocese of Philadelphia

151 Pa. Commw. 480 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1992

Even so, we held that the two organizations were “clearly separate entities,” and denied the exemption. There is no identity between the parties to this lease. … That burden remains on the property owner, even after its charitable nature is established and never shifts to the taxing authority.

Gilroy v. Department of Public Welfare

946 A.2d 194 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2008

than to qualify for assistance. 5 55 Pa.Code §§ 178.104(e)(3) and 178.105; Pema. … The ALJ’s holding is contrary to well established case law and to DPW’s regulations, which clearly give the applicant an opportunity to rebut the presumption and, thus, constitutes an eiTor of law. 6 Unfortunately, because

Chester Extended Care Center v. Commonwealth

122 Pa. Commw. 207 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1988

The OHA conclusion is in accordance with established precedent and, thus, we concur with its determination that to the extent CECC relied upon the interim payments as an indication that it was statutorily entitled to the … The law clearly appears unhelpful to CECC. “[I]t is well settled that in case of the government, states, and even municipalities, money paid by mistake may be recovered.” United States v. Hart, 12 F.

Sch. Dist. of Phila. v. Friedman

96 Pa. Commw. 267 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 1986

Friedman is qualified for the position for which he seeks reinstatement. (Footnote omitted.) … We note that, while a plaintiff may also establish a disability under 16 Pa.

Keim v. Commonwealth, Department of Health

117 Pa. Commw. 452 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 5, 1988

The announcement states clearly that employees in classes other than those specifically named may apply. … Thus, we must determine *458 whether Appellants appeals stated sufficient facts to establish a claim. The guide we turn to in determining whether an employee has stated a claim on the basis of discrimination is 4 Pa.

Feudale v. Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc.

122 A.3d 462 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2015

of standing; (5) failure to allege the facts necessary to defeat sovereign immunity; and (6) failure to state a claim for permanent injunction. … Merely alleging that DCNR’s proposed action will do hárm to the Roaring Creek Tract is insufficient to establish a claim under the Environmental Rights Amendment.

Goodwill Industries of North Central PA, Inc. v. Centre County Bd. of Assessment Appeals ~ Appeal of: Centre County Bd. of Assessment Appeals

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2024

Initially, the YMCA Court questioned whether operating a boardinghouse was “clearly necessary” for YMCA’s stated, principal purpose of improving young men. … Like the YMCA Court, which doubted whether the operation of its boardinghouse was “clearly necessary” to YMCA’s “work of charity or benevolence,” I also doubt whether Goodwill’s entire Property was “clearly necessary” to

Smith v. B & O Railroad

90 Pa. Commw. 186 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 1985

Under McDonnell-Douglas, establishing a prima facie case of discrimination requires a complainant to prove that 1) he is a member of a protected minority, 2) he applied for a jab for which he was qualified, 3) he was rejected … NOTE: The word “sufficient” is intended to more clearly establish the right of the senior employee to bid in a new position or vacancy, or exercise displacement rights, where two or more employees have adequate fitness and

Lahr v. City of York

972 A.2d 41 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2009

Without such a privilege, the evidence clearly shows by Officer’s own admissions, that he violated the statute and that such violations were the cause of Driver’s injuries. … The relevant facts are not in dispute and the remoteness of the causal connection between Officer’s negligence and Driver’s injuries clearly appears from the evidence.