" Id. "As a reviewing court, this Court may not reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder." Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157, 1160 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). "[M]atters of credibility and evidentiary weight are within the exclusive discretion of the fact-finder below . . . ." Carr v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 409 A.2d 941, 944 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). "
" Id. "As a reviewing court, this Court may not reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder." Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157, 1160 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). "[M]atters of credibility and evidentiary weight are within the exclusive discretion of the fact-finder below . . . ." Carr v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 409 A.2d 941, 944 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). "
Our review of a judgment following a nonjury trial is limited to examining whether the trial court's factual determinations are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed an error of law. Southwest Regional Tax Bureau v. Kania, 49 A.3d 529, 532 n. 5 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) ; Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157, 1160 n. 10 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007).This action would therefore be time-barred if it is subject to a statute of limitations. If the Township's claim is for breach of the Developer's Agreement, the statute of limitations would be the four-year limitation for actions for breach of a written contract and actions to enforce obligations or liabilities based on a writing, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525(8). If the Township's claim is viewed as a statutory cause of action under the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) to enforce Township Ordinance 101 and the Westmoreland County SALDO, as the Township contends, rather than a claim under the Developer's Agreement, a six-year statute of limitations applies to actions not subject to another limitation period.
Our scope of review of a judgment following a non-jury trial is limited to determining whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed an error of law. Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157, 1160 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Graf raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the trial court was bound by the Board's previous finding that Graf's kennel would not adversely affect the public welfare; and (2) whether the Ordinance is unconstitutional as applied.
In other words, “[a]s a reviewing court, this Court may not reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.” Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157, 1160 n. 10 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). Moreover, where the Chancellor's decision itself implicitly provides a clear indication of which witnesses the Chancellor credited, the Chancellor is not required to make explicit credibility determinations.
Our scope of review from a judgment following a non-jury trial is to determine whether the trial court's findings are supported by competent evidence and whether an error of law was committed. Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157, 1160 n. 10 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). In so doing, we may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.
"Our scope of review of a judgment following a non-jury trial is limited to determining whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by [substantial] evidence and whether the trial court committed an error of law." GAI Consultants, Inc. v. Homestead Borough, 120 A.3d 417, 422 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (first citing McGaffic v. City of New Castle, 74 A.3d 306, 310 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (en banc); and then citing Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157, 1160 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)). First, Spencer posits that the City's objections to his bids constituted adjudications that required adherence to procedures specified in applicable provisions of administrative law.
This Court's review of a nonjury trial is limited to determin[ing] whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial judge committed error in the application of law. Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157[, 1160 n.10] (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). As a reviewing court, this Court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder.
"This Court's scope of review of a judgment following a non-jury trial is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence, and whether the [trial] court committed error in the application of law." Com. v. Hoffman , 938 A.2d 1157, 1160 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (citation omitted). "[T]his Court may not reweigh the evidence [or] substitute [its] judgment for that of the factfinder." Id.
For purposes of clarity, we have reordered and reframed Water Polo's issues raised on appeal. "This Court's scope of review of a judgment following a non-jury trial is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence, and whether the court committed error in the application of law." Com. v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157, 1160 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (citation omitted). "[T]his Court may not reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder." Id.