Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
1,364 results for '* court:"Commonwealth Court"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2018-09-25
Practice Area: Administrative Law | Criminal Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Leavitt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-1142
Although parole board erred in failing to record reason for denying street time credit in its initial recommitment order, such error was harmless where it modified the order upon offender's administrative petition for review to include a sufficient statement of the reason for the denial of credit. Order of the parole board affirmed.
Publication Date: 2018-09-25
Practice Area: Administrative Law | Environmental Law
Industry: Mining and Resources | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Brobson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-1113
The board properly determined that contaminates continued to infiltrate the groundwater beneath plaintiff's impoundment pit on a daily basis after the date on which plaintiff completely emptied the impoundment and properly found that plaintiff acted recklessly with regard to the design and construction of the pit and its investigation and response to the release in plaintiff's challenge to its civil penalty for violating the clean streams law. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2018-09-25
Practice Area: Administrative Law | Land Use and Planning
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Canon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-1134
The Zoning Hearing Board was not required to give deference to a Planning Commission's initial determination that there was no "impervious ground cover" on property that owners sought to develop where the commission's interpretation of the applicable ordinance, the Wissahickon Watershed Overlay District, was inconsistent with the statute itself. The appellate court affirmed the trial court.
Publication Date: 2018-09-25
Practice Area: Administrative Law | Labor Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Covey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-1139
Employee's attempts to reopen a personnel issue considered closed by her employer merely amounted to dissatisfaction and did not rise to the level of harassment or discrimination that would constitute necessitous and compelling reasons for resignation such that employee would be eligible for UC benefits. Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed.
Publication Date: 2018-09-18
Practice Area: Dispute Resolution | Education Law | Labor Law
Industry: Education
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Colins
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-1087
Arbitrator's award reinstating faculty member after his termination for a sexual offense conviction 27 years earlier did not violate the essence test or the public policy exception to the essence test. Affirmed.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Martin Lipton, Erica H. Steinberger
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2018-09-11
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Covey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-1085
Trial court properly denied inmate's habeas petition asserting the board improperly detained him when it lodged a detainer against him that prevented his release on bail after he was arrested on new criminal charges because the board did not admit his averments, aggregation of consecutive sentences was automatic and mandatory, parole was not automatic and his challenge to the sentence imposed more than 20 years earlier was untimely. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2018-09-04
Practice Area: Environmental Law
Industry:
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Wojcik
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-1046
The court found that the regulatory definitions of "other critical communities," "common areas of a schools' property" and "playground contained in 25 Pa. Code §78a.1 were void and unenforceable and §78a.15(g)'s requirement that the department consider comments submitted by municipalities was unconstitutional and unenforceable but denied petitioner's challenge to chapter 78 regulations in all other aspects. Granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2018-09-04
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Cohn Jubelirer
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-1045
Trial court properly found that res judicata and collateral estoppel barred appellant's constitutional claims based on alleged retaliation by correctional institution employees and defendants did not waive those affirmative defenses by raising them late because §6602(e) permitted a court to dismiss the litigation at any time if the court found that an affirmative defense could be validly raised. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2018-09-04
Practice Area: Employment Litigation
Industry:
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Leavitt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-1048
Board erred in denying claimant's reinstatement petition for failure to raise his constitutional challenge to §306(a.2) in his petition and brief to the commonwealth court relative to litigation of the underlying modification petition that modified his benefits based on an IRE because Whitfield v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Bd., Pa. Cmwlth, No. 608C.D.2017, resolved the issues in this case and claimant had not exhausted his partial disability benefits when he filed his reinstatement petition. Vacated and remanded.
Publication Date: 2018-09-04
Practice Area: Labor Law | Tax
Industry:
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Leavitt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-1054
The facts at bar supported the conclusion that five people who worked for petitioner were independent contractors, as they could provide services to anyone and their work for the salon did not impede their ability to do so, even though these individuals did not in fact work for any other entities. The appellate court reversed in part.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read