essential elements claim in Pennsylvania

2014Specifically, a petitioner needs to produce evidence “tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense, ‘discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent.’ ” Id. at 1031 (citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 , 116 S.Ct. 1480 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)).

2014Specifically, a petitioner needs to produce evidence “tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense, ‘discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent.’ ” Id. at 1031 (citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 , 116 S.Ct. 1480 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)).

1996Milesburg I, 546 A.2d at 1307 .

1993We stated that while a full, trial-type of hearing was not required, “the commission must devise a procedure that provides the essential elements of a hearing, but allows for consideration of petitions of the type involved here in as expeditious and minimally burdensome a manner as possible. 17 Id., 119 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 105, 546 A.2d at 1307 .

2024Applying this framework to the facts of Miller, the court concluded that the lower court’s entry of judgment was proper because the jury found that the plaintiff had satisfied each of the essential elements of his claim and that it was “nevertheless, the jury’s prerogative to find [plaintiffs] failed to prove they suffered damages—as is required under a separate part of the Act—as a result of [the defendants’] tortious conduct.” Id. at 896 .

2017Phillips v. Selig, 959 A.2d 420, 437 (Pa. Super. 2008), appeal denied, 967 A.2d 960 (Pa. 2009).

2014Specifically, a petitioner needs to produce evidence “tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense, ‘discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent.’ ” Id. at 1031 (citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 , 116 S.Ct. 1480 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)).

2008This argument has been rejected by the Supreme Court which has held that it is available against the Commonwealth but that the court "will require a stronger showing by a defendant who attempts to apply the doctrine against the Commonwealth than ... against an individual." Weinberg, 509 Pa. at 150 , 501 A.2d at 243 .

2008This argument has been rejected by the Supreme Court which has held that it is available against the Commonwealth but that the court "will require a stronger showing by a defendant who attempts to apply the doctrine against the Commonwealth than ... against an individual." Weinberg, 509 Pa. at 150 , 501 A.2d at 243 .

2006Lerro v. Upper Darby Township, 798 A.2d 817, 820-21 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (citing Commonwealth v. Malloy, 304 Pa.Super. 297 , 450 A.2d 689 (1982)); Frawley, 364 A.2d at 749 . 14 To obtain discovery in support of a claim of selective prosecution, evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense, “discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent,” must be produced.

2006Lerro v. Upper Darby Township, 798 A.2d 817, 820-21 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (citing Commonwealth v. Malloy, 304 Pa.Super. 297 , 450 A.2d 689 (1982)); Frawley, 364 A.2d at 749 . 14 To obtain discovery in support of a claim of selective prosecution, evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense, “discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent,” must be produced.

2006Lerro v. Upper Darby Township, 798 A.2d 817, 820-21 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (citing Commonwealth v. Malloy, 304 Pa.Super. 297 , 450 A.2d 689 (1982)); Frawley, 364 A.2d at 749 . 14 To obtain discovery in support of a claim of selective prosecution, evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense, “discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent,” must be produced.

2001See also Pierce, supra, 786 A.2d at 221 ; Commonwealth v. Rivers, 566 Pa. 239 , 786 A.2d 923, 929 (2001) (Opinion Announcing Judgment of Court); id. at 937-38 (Castille, J. concurring); id. at 941-42 (Saylor, J., joined by Cappy, J., dissenting) (joins lead opinion and concurring opinions “in emphasizing that post-conviction petitioners absolutely must plead and support the essential elements of a claim under the Post Conviction Relief Act in order to be entitled to a hearing on their claims, and must establish those essential elements to demonstrate eligibility for relief’).

1993In Armco Advanced Materials Corporation, et al v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 135 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 15, 579 A.2d 1337 (1990) (Milesburg II), reargument denied, September 18, 1990, petition for allowance of appeal granted, 529 Pa. 624 , 600 A.2d 539 , 542, 543 (1991), which dealt with the remand order regarding the recalculation as of the date of a legally enforceable obligation, we further determined that a rehearing on the recalculations submitted by the parties was not required.

1993We stated that while a full, trial-type of hearing was not required, “the commission must devise a procedure that provides the essential elements of a hearing, but allows for consideration of petitions of the type involved here in as expeditious and minimally burdensome a manner as possible. 17 Id., 119 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 105, 546 A.2d at 1307 .

1926In conclusion, we may also observe that this court has held that whilst the unlawful entry upon the premises of a person may put the person so entering in a position for which he must answer for his unlawful act, it does not follow that the court must return contraband goods to the person who unlawfully held them: Com. v. Scanlon, 84 Pa. Superior Ct. 569 ; Com. v. Vanderpool, 84 Pa. Superior Ct. 552 .

1926In conclusion, we may also observe that this court has held that whilst the unlawful entry upon the premises of a person may put the person so entering in a position for which he must answer for his unlawful act, it does not follow that the court must return contraband goods to the person who unlawfully held them: Com. v. Scanlon, 84 Pa. Superior Ct. 569 ; Com. v. Vanderpool, 84 Pa. Superior Ct. 552 .