fundamental legal principle in Pennsylvania

2009To hold otherwise would allow the collateral order doctrine to swallow up the final order rule causing litigation to be interrupted and delayed by piecemeal review of trial court decisions." Watson v. City of Philadelphia, 665 A.2d 1315, 1318 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995).

2009To hold otherwise would allow the collateral order doctrine to swallow up the final order rule causing litigation to be interrupted and delayed by piecemeal review of trial court decisions.” Watson v. City of Philadelphia, 665 A.2d 1315, 1318 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995).

2016In Commonwealth v. Western Maryland Rail Road Company, 377 Pa. 312 , 105 A.2d 336, 340 (1954), our Supreme Court denied the appellant’s argument that the Commonwealth was estopped from assessing a tax due to “the failure of officials who, acting under a mistaken impression of the applicable law, either did not impose the taxes or compromised them for lesser amounts than were properly due.” In reviewing the extensive case law in this area, the court stated: It is a fundamental legal principle that a State or other sovereignty cannot be estopped by any acts or conduct of its officers or agents i

2016In Commonwealth v. Western Maryland Rail Road Company, 377 Pa. 312 , 105 A.2d 336, 340 (1954), our Supreme Court denied the appellant’s argument that the Commonwealth was estopped from assessing a tax due to “the failure of officials who, acting under a mistaken impression of the applicable law, either did not impose the taxes or compromised them for lesser amounts than were properly due.” In reviewing the extensive case law in this area, the court stated: It is a fundamental legal principle that a State or other sovereignty cannot be estopped by any acts or conduct of its officers or agents i

1998As we recently stated in McGourty v. Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurance Company, 704 A.2d 663 (Pa.Super.1997): The collateral order doctrine must be construed narrowly in order to ‘protect the integrity of the fundamental legal principle that only final orders may be appealed.

1998As we recently stated in McGourty v. Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurance Company, 704 A.2d 663 (Pa.Super.1997): The collateral order doctrine must be con"strued narrowly in order to ‘protect the integrity of the fundamental legal principle that only final orders may be appealed.

2025The right to decline the assistance of counsel “is based on the fundamental legal principle that a defendant must be allowed to make his own choices about the proper way to protect his own liberty,” Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286, 295 (2017), and a defendant is entitled to relief per se if counsel is forced upon him.

2024It first noted that “[a]n error has been deemed structural in some instances if the right at issue is not designed to protect the defendant from erroneous conviction but instead protects some other interest[,]” such as a defendant’s right to conduct his own defense, as “[t]hat right is based on the fundamental legal principle that a defendant must be allowed to make his own choices about the proper way to protect his own liberty.” Id. at 295 (citation omitted).

2024No errors or misinformation of officers or agents can estop the government from collecting taxes legally due.” Id. (quoting DS Waters of America, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 150 A.3d 583, 592 (Pa. Commw. 2016) (internal citation omitted)). [J-14A-2024, J-14B-2024 and J-14C-2024] - 15 the Department’s authority to alter its construction of its regulations over time, but merely disagreed that the Department could retroactively apply revised guidelines to Taxpayers.

2019A fundamental legal doctrine applicable in this context is: “[P]ersons having property rights cannot be deprived of them by judicial proceedings of which they were not notified and in which they were not given an opportunity to be heard.” In re Galli’s Estate, 340 Pa. 561, 572 , 17 A.2d 899, 904 (1941).

2019A fundamental legal doctrine applicable in this context is: “[P]ersons having property rights cannot be deprived of them by judicial proceedings of which they were not notified and in which they were not given an opportunity to be heard.” In re Galli’s Estate, 340 Pa. 561, 572 , 17 A.2d 899, 904 (1941).

2015Co., 377 Pa. 312 , 105 A.2d 336, 340-41 (1954) (“It is a fundamental legal principle that a State or other sovereignty cannot be es-topped by any acts or conduct of its officers or agents in the performance of a governmental as distinguished from a proprietary function.”); Department of Environmental Resources v. Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, 135 Pa.Cmwlth. 283 , 581 A.2d 984, 990 (1990) (“[A]n agency cannot be estopped from performing its statutory duties.”).

2015Co., 377 Pa. 312 , 105 A.2d 336, 340-41 (1954) (“It is a fundamental legal principle that a State or other sovereignty cannot be es-topped by any acts or conduct of its officers or agents in the performance of a governmental as distinguished from a proprietary function.”); Department of Environmental Resources v. Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, 135 Pa.Cmwlth. 283 , 581 A.2d 984, 990 (1990) (“[A]n agency cannot be estopped from performing its statutory duties.”).

2009Gerlach v. Moore, 243 Pa. 603, 608 , 90 A. 399, 400 (1914) (even where there has been and continues to be disagreement over the proper interpretation of our state constitutional provisions, decisions in prior cases must be "accepted as settled law, if the doctrine of stare decisis is to have any binding force in determining questions involving constitutional construction"). *955 The fundamental legal principle undergirding our Dunlap decision was the simple recognition that each individual's Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure can only be secured by requiring that there be obs

2009Gerlach v. Moore, 243 Pa. 603, 608 , 90 A. 399, 400 (1914) (even where there has been and continues to be disagreement over the proper interpretation of our state constitutional provisions, decisions in prior cases must be "accepted as settled law, if the doctrine of stare decisis is to have any binding force in determining questions involving constitutional construction"). *955 The fundamental legal principle undergirding our Dunlap decision was the simple recognition that each individual's Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure can only be secured by requiring that there be obs

2002Melvin v. Doe, 789 A.2d 696, 698 (Pa.Super.2001) (citing Kovatch Enterprises, Inc. v. Hazleton Electric Supply Company, 714 A.2d 464 (Pa.Super.1998)). ¶ 8 Furthermore, [t]he collateral order doctrine must be construed narrowly in order to ‘protect the integrity of the fundamental legal principle that only final orders may be appealed.

2002Melvin v. Doe, 789 A.2d 696, 698 (Pa.Super.2001) (citing Kovatch Enterprises, Inc. v. Hazleton Electric Supply Company, 714 A.2d 464 (Pa.Super.1998)). ¶ 8 Furthermore, [t]he collateral order doctrine must be construed narrowly in order to `protect the integrity of the fundamental legal principle that only final orders may be appealed.