burden rule in Pennsylvania

2000In rendering his decision, the WCJ stressed that this matter concerned a claim petition rather than a reinstatement petition. 4 Citing Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 535 Pa. 135, 141 , 634 A.2d 592, 595 (1993), the WCJ noted that, in a claim petition, “the Claimant [bears] ‘... the burden of establishing a right to compensation and of proving all necessary elements to support an award.’ ” (See WCJ’s decision at 10.) While this statement of an employee’s burden in a claim petition is accurate, the WCJ erred in further stating, inter alia, that “[b]ecause this was a

2000In rendering his decision, the WCJ stressed that this matter concerned a claim petition rather than a reinstatement petition. 4 Citing Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 535 Pa. 135, 141 , 634 A.2d 592, 595 (1993), the WCJ noted that, in a claim petition, “the Claimant [bears] ‘... the burden of establishing a right to compensation and of proving all necessary elements to support an award.’ ” (See WCJ’s decision at 10.) While this statement of an employee’s burden in a claim petition is accurate, the WCJ erred in further stating, inter alia, that “[b]ecause this was a

2017The Commonwealth meets its burden by submitting evidence that is “so clear, direct, weighty, - 10 - J-S04004-17 and convincing as to enable the [trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts at issue.” Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213, 219 (Pa. 2006).

2016The Commonwealth meets its burden by submitting evidence that is “so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the [trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts at issue.” Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213, 219 (Pa.2006).

2016Amandeo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Conagra Foods), 37 A.3d 72 , 75-76 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012); Reyes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (AMTEC), 967 A.2d 1071, 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (en banc).

2016Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592, 595 (Pa. 1993); Potere v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Kemcorp), 21 A.3d 684, 689-90 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011); Reyes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (AMTEC), 967 A.2d 1071, 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (en banc).

1967A case in point is Eller v. Board of Adjustment, 414 Pa. 1 , 198 A. 2d 863 (1964), wherein the majority stated: “The principles which govern a constitutional attack upon a zoning ordinance once again have been recited in the recent case of Anstine v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 411 Pa. 33, 36-37 , 190 A. 2d 712, 714-15 (1963), from which we quote: ‘The burden of proving clearly and unmistakably the unconstitutionality of a legislative enactment is upon the person so asserting. [Citing cases.] Accompanying this burden is the rule that “. . . where the constitutionality of zoning ordinances has

1967A case in point is Eller v. Board of Adjustment, 414 Pa. 1 , 198 A. 2d 863 (1964), wherein the majority stated: “The principles which govern a constitutional attack upon a zoning ordinance once again have been recited in the recent case of Anstine v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 411 Pa. 33, 36-37 , 190 A. 2d 712, 714-15 (1963), from which we quote: ‘The burden of proving clearly and unmistakably the unconstitutionality of a legislative enactment is upon the person so asserting. [Citing cases.] Accompanying this burden is the rule that “. . . where the constitutionality of zoning ordinances has

2006Rowles, 668 A.2d at 128 (emphasis in original).

1997Adopting the rationale as set forth in the concurring opinion of Ellerbe , authored by Justice Flaherty, the Rowles court abandoned the presumption that a natural parent has a prima facie right to custody as against third parties, and instead followed the rule as stated in the concurring opinion of Ellerbe as follows: “By clearly eliminating the presumption [in favor of a natural parent] per se, and mandating that custody be determined by a preponderance of evidence, weighing parenthood as a strong factor for consideration, custody proceedings would be disentangled from the burden of applying

1997Adopting the rationale as set forth in the concurring opinion of Ellerbe , authored by Justice Flaherty, the Rowles court abandoned the presumption that a natural parent has a prima facie right to custody as against third parties, and instead followed the rule as stated in the concurring opinion of Ellerbe as follows: “By clearly eliminating the presumption [in favor of a natural parent] per se, and mandating that custody be determined by a preponderance of evidence, weighing parenthood as a strong factor for consideration, custody proceedings would be disentangled from the burden of applying

1995Id., 490 Pa. at 372-74 , 416 A.2d at 516-17 (citation omitted, emphasis in original) (Flaherty, J., concurring).

2024School District of Philadelphia v. Department of Education, 45 A.3d 457, 460 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

2023See generally Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738 , 743 (Pa. 2012) (“The overall principle that emerges from the High Court’s decisional law is that federal due process permits States to place a burden on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, so long as the defendant is not thereby required to negate an element of the offense.”).

2023See generally Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738, 743 (Pa. 2012) (“The overall principle that emerges from the High Court’s decisional law is that federal due process permits States to place a burden on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, so long as the defendant is not thereby required to negate an element of the offense.”).

2022See Commonwealth v. Wayne, 720 A.2d 456, 470-71 (Pa. 1998) (holding that to prove a claim of ineffectiveness for failing to request a trial continuance for the purpose of securing an expert rebuttal witness, a petitioner “must demonstrate that an expert witness was available who would have offered testimony designed to advance appellant’s cause;” “counsel - 13 - J-S36041-21 cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to request a continuance on an unsupported pretext”).

2018Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592, 595 (Pa. 1993); Pennsylvania Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bonner), 85 A.3d 1109, 1114-15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014); Innovative Spaces v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (DeAngelis), 646 A.2d 51, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).

2018Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592, 595 (Pa. 1993); Pennsylvania Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bonner), 85 A.3d 1109, 1114-15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014); Innovative Spaces v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (DeAngelis), 646 A.2d 51, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).

2016Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592, 595 (Pa. 1993); Potere v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Kemcorp), 21 A.3d 684, 689-90 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011); Reyes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (AMTEC), 967 A.2d 1071, 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (en banc).

2012Further, contrary to the District’s claim that this issue is one of first impression, this Court has previously held that: “The [CSL] ... contemplates that the school district has the burden to challenge the estimated withheld amount....” Chester Cmty. Charter Sch. v. Dep’t of Edue., 996 A.2d 68, 79 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (emphasis added).

2010Commonwealth v. Banks, 454 Pa. 401, 409 , 311 A.2d 576, 580 (Pa. 1973).

2010Commonwealth v. Banks, 454 Pa. 401, 409 , 311 A.2d 576, 580 (Pa. 1973).

2004This Court addressed the difference in Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86 , 645 A.2d 1300, 1307 (1994): [A] defendant [raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel] is required to show actual prejudice; that is, that counsel’s ineffectiveness was of such magnitude that it “could have reasonably had an adverse effect on the outcome of the proceedings.” Pierce, 515 Pa. at 162 , 527 A.2d at 977 .

2004This Court addressed the difference in Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86 , 645 A.2d 1300, 1307 (1994): [A] defendant [raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel] is required to show actual prejudice; that is, that counsel’s ineffectiveness was of such magnitude that it “could have reasonably had an adverse effect on the outcome of the proceedings.” Pierce, 515 Pa. at 162 , 527 A.2d at 977 .