described standard in Pennsylvania

2018Conditions must be reasonable and must [ have ] support in the record warranting the imposition of such conditions; otherwise, the imposition of conditions constitutes an abuse of discretion. [ 16 ] Sabatine v. Zoning Hearing B [ d. ] of Washington T [ wp. ] , 651 A.2d 649 , 655 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). '[T]he Board is not required to support the imposition of conditions; rather, the opposite is true- property owners are required to show that the imposition of conditions was an abuse of discretion .' Leckey v. Lower Southampton T [ wp. ] Zoning Hearing B [ d. ], 864 A.2d 593 , 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004

2018Id. at 596 .

2018To be precise, the trial court described its standard of review as "limited to determining whether the adjudication 'violates constitutional rights, is not in accordance with the law, [or] violates the procedural provision[s] of the local agency law, or the commission's findings are not supported by substantial evidence.' " Trial Court Rule 1925(a) 9 Op. at 2 (quoting Moorehead v. Civil Service Commission of Allegheny County , 769 A.2d 1233 , 1237-38 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) ).

2018The Court described the inquiry as follows: “Mother and Grandfather may show cause to waive the relinquishment requirement only if they can establish that permitting Grandfather to adopt Children while Mother retains her parental rights will promote a new family unit or that it is otherwise unnecessary to require Mother to relinquish her parental rights under the circumstances of this case.” In re Adoption of M.R.D., 145 A.3d at 1128 .

2018Conditions must be reasonable and must [ have ] support in the record warranting the imposition of such conditions; otherwise, the imposition of conditions constitutes an abuse of discretion. [ 16 ] Sabatine v. Zoning Hearing B [ d. ] of Washington T [ wp. ] , 651 A.2d 649 , 655 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). '[T]he Board is not required to support the imposition of conditions; rather, the opposite is true- property owners are required to show that the imposition of conditions was an abuse of discretion .' Leckey v. Lower Southampton T [ wp. ] Zoning Hearing B [ d. ], 864 A.2d 593 , 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004

2009Bd. of Review, 114 Pa.Cmwlth. 607 , 539 A.2d 489 (1988), this Court described factors to be considered in determining whether a person exercises control in a corporation, including: the percentage of stock owned by claimant; whether claimant is an officer; the characterization given the employment relationship by laypersons; and, claimant’s title.

2009Bd. of Review, 114 Pa.Cmwlth. 607 , 539 A.2d 489 (1988), this Court described factors to be considered in determining whether a person exercises control in a corporation, including: the percentage of stock owned by claimant; whether claimant is an officer; the characterization given the employment relationship by laypersons; and, claimant’s title.

2008Id. at 596 .

2000Id. at 92-93 , 106 S.Ct. at 1721 .

2000Id. at 92-93 , 106 S.Ct. at 1721 .

1999With regard to the dicta in City of Philadelphia I describing additional conditions under which a pre-existing contract may be impaired (including the requirement of a direct impact upon public welfare), the Court described such analysis as “unfortunate” and “clearly gratuitous.” Id. at 323 , 473 A.2d at 1002 .

1999With regard to the dicta in City of Philadelphia I describing additional conditions under which a pre-existing contract may be impaired (including the requirement of a direct impact upon public welfare), the Court described such analysis as “unfortunate” and “clearly gratuitous.” Id. at 323 , 473 A.2d at 1002 .

1994In Commonwealth v. Tarver, this court described the analysis to be used in a double jeopardy context for determining whether two charges constitute “the same offense”: The following test for determining when two charges constitute the “same offense” was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932): The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether eac

1994In Commonwealth v. Tarver, this court described the analysis to be used in a double jeopardy context for determining whether two charges constitute “the same offense”: The following test for determining when two charges constitute the “same offense” was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932): The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether eac

1993Appellant also suggests that his conviction under section 3731(a)(4) is infirm under Commonwealth v. Jarman, 529 Pa. 92 , 601 A.2d 1229 (1992), and Commonwealth v. Modaffare, 529 Pa. 101 , 601 A.2d 1233 (1992), because the Commonwealth failed to produce expert testimony relating back his blood alcohol content to the time that he was driving, which was over two hours prior to when his intoxilyzer test was performed.

1993Appellant also suggests that his conviction under section 3731(a)(4) is infirm under Commonwealth v. Jarman, 529 Pa. 92 , 601 A.2d 1229 (1992), and Commonwealth v. Modaffare, 529 Pa. 101 , 601 A.2d 1233 (1992), because the Commonwealth failed to produce expert testimony relating back his blood alcohol content to the time that he was driving, which was over two hours prior to when his intoxilyzer test was performed.

1993Appellant also suggests that his conviction under section 3731(a)(4) is infirm under Commonwealth v. Jarman, 529 Pa. 92 , 601 A.2d 1229 (1992), and Commonwealth v. Modaffare, 529 Pa. 101 , 601 A.2d 1233 (1992), because the Commonwealth failed to produce expert testimony relating back his blood alcohol content to the time that he was driving, which was over two hours prior to when his intoxilyzer test was performed.

1993Appellant also suggests that his conviction under section 3731(a)(4) is infirm under Commonwealth v. Jarman, 529 Pa. 92 , 601 A.2d 1229 (1992), and Commonwealth v. Modaffare, 529 Pa. 101 , 601 A.2d 1233 (1992), because the Commonwealth failed to produce expert testimony relating back his blood alcohol content to the time that he was driving, which was over two hours prior to when his intoxilyzer test was performed.

1985In Pilkington v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corporation, 460 N.E.2d 1000 (Ind.App., 1984), another negligence case, the court described the standard of care required of companies transmitting electricity, stating that “the doctrine of strict liability is inapplicable to electric utilities.” 460 N.E.2d at 1005 .

1985In Pilkington v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corporation, 460 N.E.2d 1000 (Ind.App., 1984), another negligence case, the court described the standard of care required of companies transmitting electricity, stating that “the doctrine of strict liability is inapplicable to electric utilities.” 460 N.E.2d at 1005 .

1980This test was reaffirmed recently in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977) where by a 6-3 majority it was held to be double jeopardy to subject a defendant to successive prosecutions by state courts in Ohio upon charges of joyriding and auto theft, from a single episode, where every element of the former offense is contained in the latter. 2 (The Ohio courts do not have a rule similar to our Campana rule and only two Justices would have reversed on this basis).

1980This test was reaffirmed recently in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977) where by a 6-3 majority it was held to be double jeopardy to subject a defendant to successive prosecutions by state courts in Ohio upon charges of joyriding and auto theft, from a single episode, where every element of the former offense is contained in the latter. 2 (The Ohio courts do not have a rule similar to our Campana rule and only two Justices would have reversed on this basis).