Case law

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

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.

In re Condemnation by the Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

69 Pa. Commw. 609 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1982

This evidence established (1) that each of the eight billboards had initially been located in areas zoned for residential use, and were only permitted to remain there because they were prior nonconforming uses, (2) that D.O.T … Obedience to such regulation is not taking property without due process; that clause does not qualify the police power. ’ ’ Id. at 612 , 391 A.2d at 58 (quoting White Appeal, 287 Pa. 259, 264-65 , 134 A. 409, 411 (1926)).

School Lane Hills, Inc. v. East Hempfield Township Zoning Hearing Board

18 Pa. Commw. 519 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1975

The ordinance clearly places the burden of proof in all requests for special exceptions “upon the applicant to establish compliance with all requirements of the ordinance pertaining to the grant of a special exception and … To summarize, the Child Development Center is “basically educational in nature,” and clearly qualifies under the specially excepted use, “appropriate public uses.”

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.

Kasha v. Department of Transportation

782 A.2d 15 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 2001

In 67 Pa.Code § 445.2, an area clearly established by law as industrial or commercial is defined as a “zoned commercial or industrial area.” … Kasha argues that, if the phrase “clearly established by law as industrial or commercial” meant zoned, the legislature would have so provided.

City of Philadelphia v. Kenny

28 Pa. Commw. 531 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 1977

To provide for, establish and maintain a consolidated motion list . . . and in addition to provide and establish procedures necessary and proper to implement these practices. H. … There are no court decisions on the issue of whether 211 is a qualified or unqualified right to oral argument.

Diess v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

935 A.2d 895 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2007

Accordingly, although we do not conclude that the pleadings clearly establish MAWC’s liability under a public nuisance theory, the Landowners may be able to establish liability based upon MAWC’s maintenance of its water main … Weavertown asserts that the immunity for contractors established by the General Assembly in Section 702 applies only to such entities that also are “responsible persons.”

Menno Haven, Inc. v. Franklin County Board of Assessment & Revision of Taxes

919 A.2d 333 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2007

We decline based on Supreme Court’s decision in Community Options which, as set forth previously herein, clearly holds that “[a]n entity seeking a statutory exemption for taxation must first establish that it is a ‘purely … Accordingly, we must first determine whether Menno Haven qualifies as a purely public charity under the third prong of the HUP test.

A. Johnson v. J. Wetzel, Secretary PA. D.O.C.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2019

Further, Respondents contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in June 2013 that the Department had to provide Johnson with a pre-deprivation process before taking Act 84 deductions … The doctrine of qualified immunity, as described by the United States Supreme Court, “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Pataki v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

85 Pa. Commw. 560 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1984

Our two decided cases involving SUA issues are not helpful because in each *564 the claimant of SUA benefits was both eligible for and qualified to receive State benefits and therefore clearly not entitled to SUA benefits … It is the purpose of this part to establish a temporary Federal program of special unemployment assistance for workers who are unemployed during a period of aggravated unemployment and who are not otherwise eligible for unemployment

Harbor Advertising, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

6 A.3d 31 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2010

Harbor appealed to this Court. 4 Harbor argues that PennDOT improperly construed the phrase “clearly established by law as industrial or commercial” as requiring that the property be zoned commercial or industrial. … To qualify for the Kerr Area — Type 2 exception, an area must be “clearly established by law as industrial or commercial” prior to September 21, 1959. (Emphasis added.)

J. Doe 1 v. Franklin County

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2022

The trial court further sustained the preliminary objections to Count III on the basis that Sheriff Anthony qualified as a high public official and was, thus, immune from liability for any acts performed in his official capacity … Stated otherwise, Licensees did not have to establish that the postcards were actually read by someone other than the intended recipient to establish public disclosure of confidential information under Section 6111(i) of

In the Interest of M.B.

686 A.2d 877 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1996

Reporting; protection from retaliation; immunity (a) Reporting. — Any person having reasonable cause to believe that an older adult is in need of protective services may report such information to the agency winch is the … While not a civil action, application to the court for an access order is clearly a “proceeding.”

Zablow v. BD. OF EDUC. OF PITTSBURGH

729 A.2d 124 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 1999

Such a demonstration would establish that he will be able to ‘properly perform’ the duties. … 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.

Minnick v. Zoning Hearing Board

71 Pa. Commw. 333 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 1983

With the advent of Section 508(4) of the MPC, 11 undeveloped lots in an approved subdivision were given a three-year immunity from zoning changes. … This is no.t a case in *347 which a subdivider created a lot in disregard of a clearly f ormulated dimensional restriction.

H. Lindeman v. The Borough of Meyersdale, Somerset County

131 A.3d 145 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2015

“For a preliminary injunction to issue, every one of the prerequisites must be established; if the petitioner fails to establish any one of 9 them, there is no need to address … Such relief was clearly not appropriate given the stage of the proceedings before the trial court.

Mixon v. Commonwealth

759 A.2d 442 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2000

There must be a means of distinguishing the qualified from the unqualified ... and therefore the legislature must establish ... the means of ascertaining who are and who are not the qualified electors.... Id. at 75 . … We point out that they ignore the remaining language of Section 5102(a) which clearly states that those permitted to make application for an absentee ballot must be a qualified elector. 25 P.S. § 961.5102(a)(1) and (2).

Jones v. Bonner

107 Pa. Commw. 283 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1987

s Civil Service Regulations recognize that eligibility cut-offs will be established by examination dates and application deadlines. … issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.’

Chambers Development Co. v. Commonwealth ex rel. Allegheny County Health Department

81 Pa. Commw. 622 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1984

Furthermore, as Judge Weir noted, “an agency of government such as DEE cannot by contract immunize a citizen or corporation from the consequences of future legislative enactments....” … The statute does not operate retroactively because it does not purport to affect the relationship, established by contract, between DEE and Chambers.