Filter This View

  • Brown v. Chester County Tax Claim Bureau et al

    Publication Date: 2018-02-20
    Practice Area: Tax
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Leadbetter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0164

    Plaintiff could not use the Manufactured Home Act to exercise any rights regarding a manufactured home abandoned on his property. The appellate court affirmed a trial court order denying plaintiff relief.

  • Lehigh Valley Rail Management LLC v. County of Northampton Revenue Appeals Bd.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-20
    Practice Area: Tax
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government | Transportation
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Leavitt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0175

    Trial court erred in holding that 85 acres used for an intermodal railroad facility was exempt from the PURTA tax and the case was remanded for the trial court to determine the amount of acreage used for certain specified uses of the property and whether any or all of that acreage satisfied the exemption in §1101-A(3)(ii). Vacated and remanded.

  • J. K. v. Dept of Human Services

    Publication Date: 2018-02-20
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Leavitt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0179

    ALJ erred on remand by disregarding the unchanged evidentiary record and by failing to relate the change in his credibility determinations to the appropriate standard of proof and glossed over the evidence of taint in childs testimony in stepfathers action for expungement of an indicated report naming him as a perpetrator of child sexual abuse. Reversed.

  • Harris v. Dept of Corrections

    Publication Date: 2018-02-20
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Civil Rights
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Pellegrini
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0131

    Trial court erred in retransferring inmates ADA claim to the commonwealth court because inmates ADA claim fell within 42 Pa. C.S. § 761(a)(1)(v) since he was seeking money damages in a tort action. Reversed.

  • Brown v. Wetzel et al

    Publication Date: 2018-02-20
    Practice Area: Constitutional Law | Personal Injury
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Covey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0165

    The trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim on the basis that he did not suffer any injury, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, where he sought compensatory and punitive damages rather than injunctive relief to prevent future harm. The appellate court affirmed the trial courts dismissal order.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Infobeans cogito test

    Authors: Stephen Fishman

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • DeNaples v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Regulation
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Hospitality and Lodging
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Simpson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0140

    Anti-distribution provision imposed by gaming control board against principal licensee following dismissal of perjury charges arising from license application also applied to licensees businesses and precluded them from doing business with licensees casino. Order of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board affirmed.

  • Williams v. Wetzel

    Publication Date: 2018-02-13
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Civil Rights
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Brobson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0150

    The court overruled DOCs preliminary objections to petitioners claim that he was removed from his prison work position without his due process rights because petitioners actions violated at least two DOC policies and his misconduct was the impetus for his removal from his job and while the DOC had the discretion as to whether or not to issue a DC-141 misconduct report, it could not use the removal pro-cedures for removal in situations other than misconduct in DC-ADM 816 §1.M.7 to remove an inmate based on what amounted to work-re

  • Morley v. Farnese

    Publication Date: 2018-02-13
    Practice Area: Election and Political Law
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Colins
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0148

    Common pleas court correctly dismissed plaintiffs action alleging wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process in defendants petition to set aside plaintiffs nomination petition for a primary election because under existing case law at the time defendants filed their petition, they had probable cause as a matter of law. Affirmed.

  • Park v. Commonwealth

    Publication Date: 2018-02-13
    Practice Area: Administrative Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Simpson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0149

    Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying drivers statutory license suspension appeal because drivers argument that she was confused by officers allegedly conflicting statements failed since officer read the DL-26 form to her and did all he was obligated to do to warn her of the consequences of her refusal, her Birchfield challenge was waived and her pre-arrest breath test did not satisfy the protocol for chemical testing. Affirmed.

  • Lowman v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

    Publication Date: 2018-02-13
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Labor Law | Transportation
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Leavitt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0146

    The board erred in finding that claimant was disqualified for benefits under §402(h) when he began driving for Uber while awaiting the determination of his claim because the board incorrectly framed the analysis as claimant was either self-employed or an employee of Uber and focused on claimants relationship with Uber rather than on whether claimant took any steps to establish an independent business. Re-versed.