Case law

D.J. Norman v. PA PUC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2026

The qualified advanced meter shall be the customer's billing meter and shall meet certain standards established by the [PUC] in § 57.254 (relating to advanced meter standards … The PUC’s “interpretations of the Code . . . and its own regulations are entitled to great deference and should not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.” Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania v.

Wilson v. Ridgway Area School District

141 Pa. Commw. 617 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1991

Initially, we note that summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes its entitlement … Also on December 31, 1990, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of District based on governmental immunity. The order was appealed to this court and this court affirmed. Wilson I. .

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Preate v. Danny's New Adam & Eve Bookstore

155 Pa. Commw. 281 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1993

Appellants’ establishments are adult bookstores located in Philadelphia. Both establishments sell video tapes, books and magazines, sexual in nature. … Appellee’s agents witnessed first-hand illicit sexual activity, occurring in Appellants’ establishments which was clearly proscribed in MacDonald .

Homewood-Brushton Citizens Renewal Council v. Department of City Treasurer

27 Pa. Commw. 630 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1976

In order to qualify for the charitable exemption, certain necessary standards must be met. … They have not established that those served by the Coliseum are, in the main, proper objects of charity.

Bagwell v. Pennsylvania Department of Education

103 A.3d 409 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2014

Maguigan, 511 Pa. 112 , 511 A.2d 1327, 1334 (1986), establishes that “the party asserting [attorney-client] privilege has the initial burden to prove that it is properly invoked” and only then does the burden shift to “the … funds by an agency or its acquisition, use or disposal of services or of supplies, materials, equipment or other property and any minute, order or decision by an agency fixing the personal or property rights, privileges, immunities

Davenport v. Department of Education

850 A.2d 802 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2004

Positions ... which do not require a Pennsylvania certificate to qualify the incumbent in such position, are non-eer-tificated positions. … An agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. Watkins v. State Board of Dentistry, 740 A.2d 760 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999).

B. Sherwood v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2021

With respect to the claimed immunity, Sherwood denies that immunity poses a bar to the claim that the statutes imposing the costs, fines, restitution, and fees are unconstitutional. C. … County Respondents further assert that they are entitled to summary relief because they are immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

In re Establishment of Independent School District

22 Pa. Commw. 455 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1975

It independently concluded that the action of the Secretary of Education in having approved the transfer from an educational standpoint — a requirement contained in Section 242.1 — was “ill founded and qualified,” and hence … “(b) In the case of independent districts established hereafter, the court of common pleas shall notify the county board of school directors regarding receipt of petition for such establishment and shall direct said board

Department of General Services v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

166 Pa. Commw. 538 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1994

In March 1980, as treatment for this disease, Paul underwent a bone marrow transplant which caused him to be sterile, and which caused a breakdown of his immune system. … We disagree, as this clearly equivocal statement cannot be considered a competent medical diagnosis.

Keystone Coal Mining Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

673 A.2d 418 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1996

. § 1926, states that “[n]o statute shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly.” … Under the old version of Section 204, Claimant was clearly entitled to the entire $780.00 in combined benefits.

S.M. Donahue v. PA DHS & PA Governor's OA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2025

A writ of prohibition “is available only if the petitioning party has established that it has an extreme necessity for such a remedy and that there exists no other adequate remedy at law.” Id. … assert in their POs that (1) the PFR fails to satisfy any of the prerequisites for injunctive relief, (2) Petitioner has failed to exhaust his statutorily prescribed administrative remedies, (3) the doctrine of sovereign immunity

Re Appeal of Dunwoody Village

52 A.3d 408 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2012

test established in Hospital Utilization Project v. … Analysis Regardless of issue preservation, our Supreme Court clearly rejected this con *424 tention on the merits in Mesivtah Eitz Chaim.

Szmigiel v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

6 Pa. Commw. 632 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1972

Nor did Szmigiel sustain his burden to establish his right to a variance. … Nonconforming use status is not claimed by Szmigiel and clearly is not merited by the facts.

Sellecchia v. Commonwealth

44 Pa. Commw. 92 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 1979

On review by this Court, the test in this regard is whether the qualitative phrase does or does not qualify or modify the answer so as to make it equivocal. Harrisburg Housing Authority v. … DiDio establishes that his examination of claimant was not more detailed or sophisticated than that of Dr. Moss.

Dunlap v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

17 Pa. Commw. 19 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1975

This testimony clearly does not meet the legal standard necessary to establish causation between the July 21 incident and the disabling injury for Dr. … Clearly then if the claimant can establish all of the elements, excepting causation, under both the unusual pathological result doctrine and the unusual strain doctrine he must be granted benefits because his disability resulted

Herskovitz v. Commonwealth, State Civil Service Commission

111 Pa. Commw. 427 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1987

The Commission now argues that that Section gives further weight to their decision because federal definitions clearly exclude Petitioners as qualifying for benefits. … The sole reason asserted by the Commission for disqualifying Strohecker was that he foiled to establish the requisite service in the armed forces of the United States. Opinion of Attorney General T.

Dickey v. Board of Commissioners

658 A.2d 876 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 9, 1995

These features may establish a veteran’s eligibility to be considered for the position, but they will not establish that he is ‘qualified’ for the job. … Emery’s testimony clearly established that based upon his interview Dickey “would not make a good salesperson ...” as the 911 Coordinator to the sixty-seven local municipalities and political sub-divisions in the county.

Wolkoff v. Owens

12 Pa. Commw. 74 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1974

The City of Scranton Police Pension and Retirement Fund was established by Ordinance, File of the Council No. 3 of 1936, amended by File of the Council No. 19 of 1962 and supplemented by the compulsory retirement statute … The City took the position that these two policemen should be retained until they qualified for pension, despite the compulsory retirement statute. Former section 53 P.S. §102 and §103 have been merged.

Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Insurance Department

929 A.2d 1243 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2007

On its face, the only prerequisite that Act 106 establishes before an insured qualifies for benefits is certification by a licensed physician or psychologist and referral for appropriate treatment. … The Court’s ultimate decision on the merits is premised upon well-settled principles of statutory construction that have been clearly enunciated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth, Office of Administration

Safe Auto Insurance v. School District of Philadelphia

872 A.2d 247 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2005

This decision is clearly of no moment. … The School District, by resolution in 1990, elected under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, to retain immunity against any claims for uninsured motorist benefits.