Case law

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.

K.J. Bard v. PA DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2025

Additionally, on July 12, 2024, Petitioner filed an application for summary relief, stating that his Petition and supplement to the Petition clearly establish his right to relief. See Appl. for Summ. Relief, 7/12/24. … It is well established that “sovereign immunity bars claims seeking mandatory injunctions to compel affirmative action by Commonwealth officials[.]” Stackhouse v. Pa. State Police, 892 A.2d 54, 61 (Pa.

B. Novak v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2021

Indeed, a plaintiff must establish an underlying deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Id. … To qualify for Eleventh Amendment immunity, the government agency or instrumentality must be an “arm of the state.” Id.

Advanced Living, Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals

113 Pa. Commw. 514 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 1988

Appellant has never paid any portion of the rentals established by HUD. … This financial circumstance, which is equally applicable in the matter at bar, clearly distinguishes G.D.L.

Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hospital Inc.

59 Pa. Commw. 1 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 1981

[T]he law is not so unaware of reality that it will permit a tortfeasor to turn his wrongful act into an immunity by asserting that the eventual damage resulted from a more immediate cause when it is clear that this immediate … Brodsky, 436 Pa. 401 , 261 A.2d 84 (1970); (establishing the “zone of danger” limitation); Knaub v.

Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth

710 A.2d 108 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1998

However, legislative immunity created by the Speech and Debate Clause does not, of course, bar all judicial review of legislative acts. Powell, *119 395 U.S. at 503 , 89 S.Ct. at 1954-55 , citing Marbury v. … Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer will be sustained only where the pleading is clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer.

Benedictine Sisters of Pittsburgh v. Fayette County Board of Assessment Appeals

844 A.2d 86 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2004

First, it contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the Property qualifies as a place of regularly scheduled worship. … There was testimony established that the retreat was used at most two or three times a year by sisters for relaxation.

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.

Scripture Union v. Deitch

132 Pa. Commw. 134 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1990

Following the hearing in this appeal, the trial court held that Scripture Union failed to establish that it met any of the standards set forth in Hospital Utilization Project . … This clearly implies that members can donate up to more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) but should not give less than twenty dollars ($20.00) it does not suggest members might give less but not nothing.

Lewistown Hospital v. Mifflin County Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. County of Mifflin

706 A.2d 1269 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1998

Once the entity has established the five elements set forth in HUP, it must also establish that it meets the statutory requirement of Section 204(a)(3) of the Assessment Law, 72 P.S. § 5020-204(a)(3). … The core passage from Sacred Heart, clearly states that the activities of related organizations may not be considered “when determining a single corporation’s right to a charitable tax exemption....” Id.

Wyoming Valley Montessori Ass'n v. Board of Assessment Appeals

110 Pa. Commw. 458 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1987

The common pleas court concluded, based on evidence adduced at a hearing, that Appellant does not qualify as a purely public charity. … Based on these facts, we must conclude that Appellant clearly does not donate or render gratuitously a substantial portion of its educational services.

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.

Hillcrest Home, Inc. v. Commonwealth

123 Pa. Commw. 289 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 1989

Its petition, filed on October 8, 1987, was thus clearly timely. And, because the OHA order was not appealed to this Court, see Pa. … A general statement of policy, on the other hand, does not establish a ‘binding norm’. ... A policy statement announces the agency’s tentative intentions for the future.

Messiah Village v. Commonwealth

118 Pa. Commw. 29 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1988

In other words, unless the investment income is clearly earmarked as donor restricted, . . . DPW did not err in offsetting the investment income. (Citation omitted, footnote omitted.) … In order to establish that funds qualify for exemption under Section 1181.260(h)(1) 5 a provider must show both that the investment income was earned on *39 gifts or grants and that “the corpus of the gift or grant and 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

Alekseev v. CITY COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA

976 A.2d 1253 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2009

A “special meeting” is nothing more than a “meeting” scheduled after the establishment of Council’s regular meeting schedule. … HAPCO maintains, however, this renders Council’s practice of holding special meetings before committees of Council, without a quorum of Council present, inadequate to qualify for the Act’s exception to the public participation

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 v. Baker

82 Pa. Commw. 86 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1984

With the factual basis for cost sanctions against the board thus established, the remaining question of law is whether or not the commission had the legal *93 power to make a counsel-fee-reimbursement cost award. … They describe the Code as consisting of “codified and compiled provisions relating to judiciary and judicial procedure, including certain judicially enforceable rights, duties, immunities and liabilities....”

Digital-Ink, Inc. v. Department of General Services

923 A.2d 1262 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2007

Clearly, as stated in Section 106, only financial information or unsuccessful proposals are exempt from disclosure. … A requesting party has the burden to establish that the documents he or she seeks are public records under the RTKL. Rowland v.

Huntington Creek Corp. v. Commonwealth

6 Pa. Commw. 310 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 1972

within the purview of subsection (b) of the statutory definition here under consideration.” 92 Dauph. at 304-5. *318 This authoritative pronouncement establishes the rule that once a qualified corporation withdraws its certificate … Incidental business activities within the Commonwealth during a period of nonqualification cannot sustain the credit for taxes previously paid when such credit was so clearly denied as legislatively intended and constitutionally