Case law

Bellew v. Commonwealth, State Civil Service Commission

117 Pa. Commw. 447 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 5, 1988

On her Appeal Request Form, in response to directions that she state specifically the acts of discrimination, Appellant alleged only that she believed that her present classification clearly met the requirements of the next … Section 3(e) of that Directive defines “next lower position” as a position in: (1) the next lower class in the same class series; or (2) a lower level class for which the appointing authority can establish a logical occupational

Ryan v. Commonwealth, Higher Education Assistance Agency

68 Pa. Commw. 123 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1982

. §66.2, and that the contracts which he sought here were clearly public records under Section 66.1(2) of the Right to Know Act, 65 P.S. §66.1(2). *126 He argues that they were “contracts dealing with the receipt or disbursement … 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

Grace Center Community Living Corp. v. County of Indiana

796 A.2d 1008 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2002

The trial court noted that the first three aspects of the statutory tests were clearly satisfied, but that Grace Manor submitted no legal document incorporating a provision prohibiting use of any surplus funds for private … However, the trial court accepted the testimony of witnesses who established that while such a document existed, it could not be located. See Pa. R.E. 1004.

PILCHESKY v. Doherty

941 A.2d 95 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2008

Defendant also claims immunity from suit. … Twp. of Penn, 728 A.2d 1012 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (imposition of tax is presumed valid and taxpayer has heavy burden establishing tax clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the constitution).

Armco Advanced Materials Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

135 Pa. Commw. 15 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1990

Consolidated Edison is clearly distinguishable from the present case. Pennsylvania has no statute authorizing rates in excess of FAC. … Finally, we note that this case involves a question of first impression, the resolution of which could not have been clearly foreshadowed.

Bene v. Zoning Hearing Board

121 Pa. Commw. 380 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1988

Appellants also contend that the ZHB erred in concluding that the car wash did not have to qualify as a special exception where the gas station, as the primary use, did have to qualify as a special exception. … Thus, the Ordinance clearly authorizes the procedure employed by the zoning officer in this case in referring Applicants building permit application to the ZHB.

B. Puricelli v. Com. of PA DOT (Office of Chief Counsel)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2023

A demurrer can only be sustained in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Torres, 997 A.2d at 1245. … The purpose of mandamus is not to establish legal rights, but to enforce rights which are already established. Jamieson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 495 A.2d 623, 625 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).

B. Gosselin v. The Supers. of N. Manheim Twp., Schuylkill County, PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2021

Supervisors are protected by qualified immunity, high public official immunity, and official immunity. … App’x 118, 123 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[I]t is well established that qualified immunity does 10 Unreported decisions of this Court, while not binding, may be cited for their persuasive authority pursuant to Pennsylvania

Pasour v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

54 A.3d 134 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2012

The Independent Contractor Agreement and a separate Waiver of Unemployment Compensation, Workers’ Compensation, and Disability Insurance (Waiver), read and signed by Claimant, together clearly state that Claimant acknowledges … Therefore, the Board did not err in holding that Claimant was customarily engaged in an independently established trade or business.

Moore v. PA. DEPT. OF JUSTICE

114 Pa. Commw. 56 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1988

Rather, it defines what acts may constitute negligence, assuming that a duty is independently established. See Rich v. … City of Philadelphia, 516 Pa. 316, 319 , 532 A.2d 411, 413 (1987), wherein the court stated: In Mascaro, we held that the Tort Claims Act, specifically 42 Pa.C.S. §8541, clearly precludes the imposition of liability on the

Commonwealth, Department of General Services v. Board of Claims

881 A.2d 14 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2005

Section 1725(e)(1) establishes a process through which the Board adjudicates these claims, and it provides in part as follows: (e) Decision.— (1) After considering the pleadings and the testimony given at the hearing before … Clearly, DGS’ request for declaratory relief does not concern the constitutionally of an enabling statute or whether a statute violates individual constitutional rights; nor does DGS indicate the statutory authority beyond

R. Highley and B. Hurst v. PennDOT

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2018

The Procurement Code both reaffirms the Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity and waives sovereign immunity for bid protests under Section 1711.1 of the Procurement Code. 62 Pa. C.S. § 1702. … C.S. § 1711.1 (establishing the right to challenge procurements by Commonwealth agencies).

A. Flitter v. Office of Judicial Records Criminal Div., First Judicial District of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2026

The complaint did not plead any facts that would establish any of the exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in Section 8522 of what is commonly referred to as the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act (Sovereign Immunity … A demurrer “tests the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” Id. (citation omitted).

Herdelin v. Greenberg

16 Pa. Commw. 405 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1974

This was clearly not the case here. The principal protestant knew that a use other than one he assumed had been permitted by the original variance was proposed before December 1, 1972. … Affirmed. 1 One of four members of the Board voting would have qualified the approval of the variance by forbidding food or beverage stores. 2 A representative of the Department of Licenses and Inspections testified that

Caso v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

790 A.2d 1078 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2002

Consequently, if a vocational expert meets the requirements established by the Bureau in 34 Pa.Code § 123.202, he or she is an expert approved by the Department. … The vocational evaluation shall be completed: (1) by a qualified vocational expert approved by the department; or (2) by the department on a fee-for-service basis.

Carney v. Commonwealth

45 Pa. Commw. 10 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1979

ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations of any or all of the parties to the proceedings in which the adjudication is made....” … The Legislature clearly intended that a complainant exhaust the procedures under the PHRA as a condition to the accrual of a right of action in the Court of Common Pleas.

Ness v. York Township Board of Commissioners

81 A.3d 1073 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2013

implement and pass an ordinance without taking any official action whatsoever, but so long as the municipality provides a section 108 post-enactment notice and no appeal is filed within 30 days, that ordinance is valid and immune … As the Court explained: A strict reading of the statute demonstrates that the challenge is clearly time-barred as [a]ppellant waited between five and seven years to contest the allegedly defective procedure during the enactment

PG Publishing Co. v. Governor's Office of Administration

120 A.3d 456 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2015

Beard, 918 A.2d 155, 159 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (“[T]he purpose of mandamus is not to establish legal rights, but to enforce those rights which are already established.”). 11 Accordingly, we sustain the GOA and PDE’s preliminary … The GOA and PDE have also asserted that the action in mandamus is barred by sovereign immunity.

Washington v. Commonwealth

105 Pa. Commw. 215 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1987

The discharge letter was brought to the hearing by RosaLee Bringhurst, the employers claim representative, whose testimony established that she was a prop *219 er custodian of documents. … The acronym is an abbreviation of “qualified member of the engine department.” See Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa.

Parfitt v. Commonwealth

20 Pa. Commw. 233 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1975

Clearly, in its order directing claimant to repay his unemployment compensation benefits received after October 6, 1972, the lower court misread this section. … Therefore, as adjudged by the Board, claimant, although qualified for benefits under the Act, could not commence receipt of such benefits until his unemployment compensation entitlement had expired.