error of law violation in Pennsylvania

1978The extent of competition is basically a matter within the administrative discretion of the Commission which once having been determined by the Commission wbl not be disturbed unless it is without support in the evidence or is so arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable as to amount to an error of law or violation of constitutional rights: Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 196 , 191 A. 2d. 876 (1963); Reeder v. Pennsylvania Pub lic Utility Commission, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 298 , 162 A. 2d 231 (1960).

1978The extent of competition is basically a matter within the administrative discretion of the Commission which once having been determined by the Commission wbl not be disturbed unless it is without support in the evidence or is so arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable as to amount to an error of law or violation of constitutional rights: Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 196 , 191 A. 2d. 876 (1963); Reeder v. Pennsylvania Pub lic Utility Commission, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 298 , 162 A. 2d 231 (1960).

2009Tri-Union Express v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hickle), 703 A.2d 558 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997).

2007Gilotty v. Township of Moon, 846 A.2d 195 , 198 n. 3 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004); see also 2 Pa.C.S. § 754(b). 13 .

2002J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School Dist., 757 A.2d 412 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), appeal granted, 565 Pa. 655 , 771 A.2d 1290 (2001). 4 .This Court’s review of a trial court’s discovery decisions is limited.

2002The majority cites to Odgers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 514 Pa. 378 , 525 A.2d 359 (1987), as a case in which this court emphasized “capricious disregard as applicable to review of agency adjudications unfavorable to the burdened party.” (Majority opinion, page 485.) However, a review of Odgers indicates that this Court was concentrating on an error of law analysis, rather than one of “capricious disregard.” A few months later, this Court issued its opinion in Farquhar v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Corning Glass Works), 515 Pa. 315 , 528 A.2d 580 (1987), one in whi

2002The majority cites to Odgers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 514 Pa. 378 , 525 A.2d 359 (1987), as a case in which this court emphasized “capricious disregard as applicable to review of agency adjudications unfavorable to the burdened party.” (Majority opinion, page 485.) However, a review of Odgers indicates that this Court was concentrating on an error of law analysis, rather than one of “capricious disregard.” A few months later, this Court issued its opinion in Farquhar v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Corning Glass Works), 515 Pa. 315 , 528 A.2d 580 (1987), one in whi

1994In Donegal Mutual Insurance Company v. Foster, 148 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 589, 612 A.2d 568 , petition for allowance of appeal denied, 533 Pa. 614 , 618 A.2d 403 (1992), this Court reaffirmed that: The grounds upon which an insurer may refuse to renew an automobile insurance policy of an individual are carefully and clearly delineated by the Act.

1991It is well recognized that the issue of “[w]hether an employee is within the course of his or her employment when an injury occurs is a conclusion of law subject to our review.” Pypers v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Baker), 105 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 448, 450, 524 A.2d 1046, 1048 (1987); See also City of Pittsburgh v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Marunich), 108 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 477, 529 A.2d 1196 (1987); Peer v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (B & W Construction), 94 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 540, 503 A.2d 1096 (1986).

1991It is well recognized that the issue of "[w]hether an employee is within the course of his or her employment when an injury occurs is a conclusion of law subject to our review." Pypers v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Baker), 105 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 448, 450, 524 A.2d 1046, 1048 (1987); See also City of Pittsburgh v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Marunich), 108 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 477, 529 A.2d 1196 (1987); Peer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (B & W Construction), 94 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 540, 503 A.2d 1096 (1986).

1985Republic Steel Corp. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Deppenbrook), 82 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 596 , 476 A.2d 989 (1984).

1985Republic Steel Corp. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Deppenbrook), 82 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 596 , 476 A.2d 989 (1984).

1978The extent of competition is basically a matter within the administrative discretion of the Commission which once having been determined by the Commission wbl not be disturbed unless it is without support in the evidence or is so arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable as to amount to an error of law or violation of constitutional rights: Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 196 , 191 A. 2d. 876 (1963); Reeder v. Pennsylvania Pub lic Utility Commission, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 298 , 162 A. 2d 231 (1960).

1978Implicit in the authority of the Commission to determine what is in the public interest are the questions of available equipment and facilities of a would-be public utility or an already established public utility: Zurcher v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 343 , 98 A. 2d 218 (1953).

1978Implicit in the authority of the Commission to determine what is in the public interest are the questions of available equipment and facilities of a would-be public utility or an already established public utility: Zurcher v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 343 , 98 A. 2d 218 (1953).

1963John Benkart and Sons Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, supra, 137 Pa. Superior Ct. 5, 8 , 7 A. 2d 584 ; Reeder v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 298, 304 , 162 A. 2d 231 .

1963John Benkart and Sons Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, supra, 137 Pa. Superior Ct. 5, 8 , 7 A. 2d 584 ; Reeder v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 298, 304 , 162 A. 2d 231 .

1909So far as the question of appellate jurisdiction is concerned, the question does not differ essentially from Gemas’s License, 169 Pa. 43 ; and Doberneck’s License, 1 Pa. Superior Ct. 99 .

1909So far as the question of appellate jurisdiction is concerned, the question does not differ essentially from Gemas’s License, 169 Pa. 43 ; and Doberneck’s License, 1 Pa. Superior Ct. 99 .

1909As the record shows affirmatively that this was the ground of the court’s decision, it would seem to be inconsistent with the ruling in Schmuck v. Hartman, supra, to hold that the error of law if error there be, is beyond the power of this court to correct.