Filter This View

  • City of Philadelphia v. Galdo

    Publication Date: 2018-04-17
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Brobson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0447

    Adverse possession claim could be brought against property of a political subdivision not held for public purpose or at the direction of the commonwealth in furtherance of the subdivisions constitutional obligations. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Piree)

    Publication Date: 2018-04-17
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Jubelirer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0431

    Public employer not entitled to subrogate against a third-party motor vehicle tortfeasor for workers compensation benefits paid as partial compensation of an injured employees Heart and Lung benefits. Order of the WCAB affirmed, case remanded.

  • Von Dehn v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board

    Publication Date: 2018-04-17
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Employment Litigation
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Simpson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0459

    Unemployment compensation review board erred as a matter of law in considering whether claimant had a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving his part-time intermittent job because claimant applied for benefits based on his lay-off from his full-time employer and he was clearly eligible for benefits based on that layoff. Reversed.

  • Monroe Land Inv. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment

    Publication Date: 2018-04-10
    Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
    Industry: Real Estate | Retail
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Jubelirer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0426

    Common pleas did not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board in holding that board abused its discretion in denying an application for a special exception because the only evidence in the record supported granting the special exception. Affirmed.

  • In re Return of Personal Property

    Publication Date: 2018-04-10
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Jubelirer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0424

    Court of common pleas erred in ordering guns and weapons that had been seized for safety to be returned after 13 years because the residual catchall statute of limitations, §5527(b), applied and the petition for the return of the items was untimely. Reversed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Privacy Law

    Authors: Blaze D. Waleski

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Sipps v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

    Publication Date: 2018-04-10
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Employment Litigation
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Covey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0429

    Unemployment compensation board of review properly held that claimant was ineligible for benefits due to willful misconduct because he took 24 hours to report his arrest even though he knew employers policy required it to be reported immediately. Affirmed.

  • City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police

    Publication Date: 2018-04-10
    Practice Area: Dispute Resolution | Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Covey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0414

    An arbitrator erred in concluding that he had authority to decide the arbitrability of this case, involving the non-promotion of a City of Philadelphia police officer, since the case he relied upon for authority was not binding and neither the applicable collective bargaining agreement nor Act 111 gave him such authority. The court reversed and remanded on other grounds.

  • York OPA, LLC v. Dept of Transportation

    Publication Date: 2018-04-03
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge McCullough
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0398

    Trial court properly found that landowner did not waive its right to raise the issue of a de facto taking, despite its failure to file preliminary objections to DOTs declaration of taking, because the 0.142 acre area that was allegedly a right-of-way was not properly identified and included in the declaration but the trial court did err in determining that an inverse condemnation had occurred because the board of property had exclusive jurisdiction to determine title to property to which the commonwealth held an interest. Affirmed in

  • American Electric Power Service Corp. v. Commonwealth

    Publication Date: 2018-04-03
    Practice Area: Tax
    Industry: Energy | State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Leavitt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0381

    Taxpayer, a corporation that sells electricity in Pennsylvania on a wholesale basis, was subject to gross receipts taxes under §1101(b) of the Tax Reform Code of 1971, which imposes the tax upon every entity that is engaged in the electric light and power business. The court denied taxpayers exceptions.

  • B & R Resources, LLC v. Dept. of Environmental Protection

    Publication Date: 2018-04-03
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Colins
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0382

    The Commonwealth Court rejected petitioners contention that the individual petitioner, the sole member and managing member of an oil and gas company, could not be held liable for oil and gas regulatory violations under the participation theory because the theory does not apply where the challenged conduct consists of inaction. The court reversed and remanded on other grounds.