Case law

Odette's, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Bureau of State Parks

699 A.2d 775 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1997

According to DCNR, the General Assembly has not waived sovereign immunity in the Dam Act. … Accordingly, sovereign immunity does not bar Odette’s suit under the Dam Act. c. Does Odette’s have an adequate remedy at law?

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.

A.D. Brown v. A. Dreibelbis, Esq.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2019

Prothonotary filed the instant POs, asserting that Petitioner’s claims are barred because Prothonotary is entitled to sovereign immunity, quasi-judicial immunity, and qualified immunity; and Petitioner’s requested relief … In support of the POs, Prothonotary argues5 that Petitioner’s claims against her cannot succeed because she is protected by quasi-judicial and qualified immunity.

Carlantonio v. Commonwealth

99 Pa. Commw. 11 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1986

The boards Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 7 and 8, which Carlantonio also does not dispute, establish Bienkowskis admitted falsification of his employment application, and Carlantonio s statements to Hahnemann University officials … Commonwealth Ct. 537, 539 , 447 A.2d 1060, 1061 (1982). *16 Clearly, Carlantonios acts of misrepresentation were mimical to the employers interests and fell below the “standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully

Humphrey v. Department of Corrections

939 A.2d 987 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2007

Humphrey argues that UCC forms qualify as public records and that requiring a reason for possessing UCC forms violates the language of the RTKL. … Therefore, Humphrey failed to establish that DC-ADM 803-3 clearly violates a constitutional right and, so, we sustain DOC’s preliminary objection.

Appeal of McNelly

122 Pa. Commw. 601 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1989

as a qualifier. … Here, Appellants have clearly failed to meet that burden.

Scott Paper Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

126 Pa. Commw. 111 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 1989

This limitation or “cap” would not be upon the amount of back-up power a qualifying facility could take, but instead, would be upon the amount of back-up power a qualifying facility could take at a certain rate. … Clearly, this amendment by the Commission affects the substantive rights of interruptible customers, in particular, Scott.

City of Philadelphia Tax Review Board v. Penn Center House, Inc.

81 Pa. Commw. 17 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1984

The trial court found that Penn Center House, Inc., is a Maryland corporation organized and established for the purpose of providing rental housing on a cooperative basis. … That it pays the tax on some of its activities does not prevent immunity from tax on its nonprofit activities. (Emphasis added.) Frankford Grocery at 549, 103 A.2d at 741 .

Wilkinsburg Education Ass'n v. School District of Wilkinsburg

690 A.2d 1252 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1996

MOTION TO QUASH COUNT I OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW It is well established that in order to have standing to challenge an official order or action, a party must be aggrieved thereby. Beers v. … The test is whether it is clear from all of the facts pleaded that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish his or her right to relief. Firing v.

Dipietrae v. City of Philadelphia

666 A.2d 1132 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1995

In the Election Code, the General Assembly clearly contemplated delegation in order to facilitate a disabled elector’s right to vote. … As we noted in the first segment of this opinion, the General Assembly in the Code clearly contemplated delegation in the election process.

Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

152 Pa. Commw. 77 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1992

Despite the clearly-expressed business intent of the owner, this Court held that the owner could not be a statutory employer under the Act. See also Zizza v. … The Board also attempts to distinguish the line of statutory employer doctrine cases by noting that in most of these cases the employer was defensively using the doctrine in an attempt to obtain immunity from common law negligence

Mitman v. Police Pension Commission of Easton

972 A.2d 1276 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 2009

for workers’ compensation benefits in order to qualify for a disability pension. … to qualify for a disability pension).

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).

Campbell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

705 A.2d 503 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 1998

A type three (3) reaction is an allergic response to the antibody-antigen immune complex. Possible reactions were vasculi-tis, in which the kidney might be damaged, and glomerulia nephritis, a kidney problem. … Thus, Employer clearly failed in its burden to persuade the factfinder. When Dr. Genovese Stone’s testimony is discounted as incredible, Employer cannot sustain its burden of proof on its termination petition.

Behney v. Bolich

986 A.2d 944 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2009

Appellant claims that DOT should have been released from the case based on sovereign immunity before the trial started and that, by the time DOT was dismissed from the case, the jury already had heard testimony from Fidler … However, if the relevant facts are not in dispute, and the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the Appellant’s injury clearly appears from the evidence, the question becomes one of law. Lahr . 2 .

Konidaris v. Portnoff Law Associates., Ltd.

884 A.2d 348 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2005

Embracing an impairment of contracts analysis, the trial court determined the plaintiffs sought to protect a mere personal economic expectation which did not rise to the level of vested right qualifying for constitutional … At that time, sovereign immunity did not exist. Thereafter, the General Assembly passed Act 152, which created statutory sovereign immunity for the first time in Pennsylvania.

LaStella v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs, State Board of Psychology

954 A.2d 769 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2008

Petitioner contends 2 that the Board of Psychology failed to consider competent and “overwhelming” evidence *773 that established that she was qualified for licensure in Pennsylvania. 3 Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, … Barran has not established bias or otherwise proved an impermissible commingling of functions performed by the Board. (Emphasis added). Id. at 771.

Allison v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

716 A.2d 689 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 1998

Here, the Allisons contend that counsel for the PHRC established only the first two of these elements in its case in chief; however, we conclude that the evidence presented is sufficient to establish the remaining three elements … To the contrary, the Allisons contend that the record clearly fails to establish that they engaged in any discriminatory practices.

Hughes v. Public School Employes' Retirement Board

662 A.2d 701 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1995

While a party may choose to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, it does not immunize the party from the potentially negative consequences of that choice in a civil proceeding. Id. … The letter stated that claimant would qualify for the "30 and out” retirement incentive.

McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police

123 A.3d 1136 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2015

In the present case, McCulligan needed to plead the facts necessary to establish a cause of action for removal under Section 5726 of the Wiretap Act. … [is] an extreme sanction that has rarely if ever been deployed, [and] was clearly intended to deter the most egregious intentional violations of personal privacy.” Welch v.