rationale behind rule in Pennsylvania

2015Id. at 723.

2015Id. at 723.

1971The court in Upper Darby Township Appeal, 391 Pa. 347, 354 , 138 A. 2d 99, 102 (1958) stated: “If we were to prevent the natural growth and expansion of a protected nonconforming use, we would invade the constitutional guarantees of due process which indeed brought the nonconforming principle into being ” (Emphasis added) The Court recently re-emphasized this principle in the case of Silver v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 435 Pa. 99, 102 , 255 A. 2d 506, 507 (1969) wherein it said: “The rationale behind the doctrine [of expansion] can be traced to the due process requirements prote

1971The court in Upper Darby Township Appeal, 391 Pa. 347, 354 , 138 A. 2d 99, 102 (1958) stated: “If we were to prevent the natural growth and expansion of a protected nonconforming use, we would invade the constitutional guarantees of due process which indeed brought the nonconforming principle into being ” (Emphasis added) The Court recently re-emphasized this principle in the case of Silver v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 435 Pa. 99, 102 , 255 A. 2d 506, 507 (1969) wherein it said: “The rationale behind the doctrine [of expansion] can be traced to the due process requirements prote

2003Ritter v. Ritter, 359 Pa.Super. 12 , 518 A.2d 319, 321 (1986).

2003Ritter v. Ritter, 359 Pa.Super. 12 , 518 A.2d 319, 321 (1986).

2021“The rationale behind this rule is that ‘once an employee is on the employer’s premises, actually going to or leaving the employee’s work station is a necessary part of that employee’s employment.’” ICT Grp., 995 A.2d at 932 (quoting Allegheny Ludlum, 913 A.2d at 349 ).

2017We explained that “[i]t is well established in Pennsylvania that ‘any injury occurring to an employee up until the 11 time he leaves the premises of the employer, provided that it is reasonably proximate to work hours, is compensable.’ The rationale behind this rule is that ‘once an employee is on the [e]mployer’s premises, actually getting to or leaving the employee’s work station is a necessary part of that employee’s employment.’” ICT Group, 995 A.2d at 932 (quoting Allegheny Ludlum, 913 A.2d at 349 ).

2019Id. at 441-442 (internal citations omitted).

1997Id., 381 Pa.Super. at 232-33 , 553 A.2d at 441-42 .

1988Commonwealth v. Farris, 251 Pa.Superior Ct. 277, 282, 380 A.2d 486 , 489 *357 (1977).

1986Commonwealth v. Farris, 251 Pa.Superior Ct. 277, 282, 380 A.2d 486, 489 (1977).

1971The court in Upper Darby Township Appeal, 391 Pa. 347, 354 , 138 A. 2d 99, 102 (1958) stated: “If we were to prevent the natural growth and expansion of a protected nonconforming use, we would invade the constitutional guarantees of due process which indeed brought the nonconforming principle into being ” (Emphasis added) The Court recently re-emphasized this principle in the case of Silver v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 435 Pa. 99, 102 , 255 A. 2d 506, 507 (1969) wherein it said: “The rationale behind the doctrine [of expansion] can be traced to the due process requirements prote

1971The court in Upper Darby Township Appeal, 391 Pa. 347, 354 , 138 A. 2d 99, 102 (1958) stated: “If we were to prevent the natural growth and expansion of a protected nonconforming use, we would invade the constitutional guarantees of due process which indeed brought the nonconforming principle into being ” (Emphasis added) The Court recently re-emphasized this principle in the case of Silver v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 435 Pa. 99, 102 , 255 A. 2d 506, 507 (1969) wherein it said: “The rationale behind the doctrine [of expansion] can be traced to the due process requirements prote

2024Ass’n, PSEA/NEA, 754 A.2d 1255, 1262 (Pa. 2000)). 14 The rationale behind this principle was described as follows: To view this type of agreement otherwise would lead to chaos and a breakdown in the entire scheme of collective bargaining for which the parties have provided and contracted.

2024Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 263 A.3d 626 , 646 (Pa. 2021) The Supreme Court has further articulated the rationale behind such a requirement stating, "[i]n short, probable cause exists when, based upon a totality of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit of probable cause, there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Commonwealth. v. Korn, 139 A.3d 249, 254 (Pa. Super. 2016) However, the Superior Court best articulated the standard: a warrant unconstitutional for its lack of particularity authorizes a search in terms so ambiguous as to allow the

2023The rationale behind this principle was that, having essentially renounced the law, an individual was in physician liable to the public at large.” Amici Brief at 6 (quoting Estate of Witthoeft v. Kiskaddon, 733 A.2d 623, 630 (Pa. 1999)).

2022The rationale behind such a presumption was expressly rejected by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017), with respect to due-diligence analyses raised under the newly-discovered fact exception, which is analogous to the circumstances here. 6 “We may affirm the decision of the PCRA court if there is any basis on the record to support the PCRA court’s action; this is so even if we rely on a different basis in our decision to affirm.” Commonwealth v. Wiley, 966 A.2d 1153, 1157 (Pa. Super. 2009) (cleaned up). - 12 - J-A14011-22 Further discussion of the Ski-Mask Stud

2021See id.

2021The court further explained that “[t]he rule recognizes that a traveling employee is subject to hazards [he or she] would otherwise have the option of avoiding and that hazards of travel become the hazards of the employment.” Id. at 697 (quoting Chavez v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 27 P.3d 1011, 1014 (N.M.

2019Fund Corp. v. Reel, 735 P.2d 364, 367 (Or. 1987)) (alterations in original) (emphasis omitted).

2017Bd. of Review, 289 A.2d 726, 727 (Pa. 1972).

2017The rationale behind this waiver principle is that “[i]t is for the court which accepted the plea to consider and correct, in the first instance, any error which may have been committed.” Commonwealth v. Roberts, 237 Pa.Super. 336 , 352 A.2d 140, 141 (1975) (holding that common and previously condoned mistake of attacking guilty plea on direct appeal without first filing petition to withdraw plea with trial court is procedural error resulting in waiver; stating, “(t)he swift and orderly administration of criminal justice requires that lower courts be given the opportunity to rectify their erro

2017The rationale behind this waiver principle is that “[i]t is for the court which accepted the plea to consider and correct, in the first instance, any error which may have been committed.” Commonwealth v. Roberts, 237 Pa.Super. 336 , 352 A.2d 140, 141 (1975) (holding that common and previously condoned mistake of attacking guilty plea on direct appeal without first filing petition to withdraw plea with trial court is procedural error resulting in waiver; stating, “(t)he swift and orderly administration of criminal justice requires that lower courts be given the opportunity to rectify their erro

2014The rationale behind this rule is that forfeiture “is a civil consequence of violating a criminal statute” and, consequently, “property is forfeited not as a result of a criminal conviction but in a separate civil proceeding.” Commonwealth v. Assorted Consumer Fireworks, 16 A.3d 554, 558 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). 2 window, the officers smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana emanating from within the vehicle.