In this matter arising out of Montgomery County, the Commonwealth Court was presented with an appeal of a municipal ordinance that prohibited the carrying or discharging of firearms in municipal parks. Finding the ordinance violated the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (the “UFA”), the court held that municipalities cannot regulate firearm possession in any manner, absent a grant of direct statutory authority from the General Assembly, regardless of whether such possession is legal or not.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Municipal Law (Page 4 of 9)
In this decision out of Allegheny County the Commonwealth Court was presented with the question of whether the volunteering of time or services, and the permitting of temporary government use of property without compensation constitutes a “donation” to a government agency that falls under the donor exception to the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”). In reversing the final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the court found that because there was no express limitation on the type of donations exempted from disclosure within the RTKL, such donations were exempt from disclosure.
In this zoning enforcement action out of Northampton County, the Commonwealth Court was presented with a property owner’s appeal of a judgment entered against them for constructing a retaining wall and backfill within the Delaware River floodplain without necessary permits. In affirming the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County’s (the “trial court”) decision to award attorney fees, a fine, and grant a permanent injunction, the court found that failure to appeal a zoning violation notice to the zoning hearing board (“ZHB”) resulted in a conclusive determination of violation that could not be contested on appeal.
In this appeal of a final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) the Commonwealth Court weighed in on the scope of the Criminal History Record Information Act (“CHRIA”) and the criminal investigative exception to the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) and there applicability to surveillance videos obtained from third parties. In reversing OOR’s final determination, the Commonwealth Court held that surveillance videos obtained from third parties during the course of a criminal investigation are not required to be disclosed pursuant to a RTKL request.
In this action for negligence out of the City of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court was presented with a question of whether an injury caused by an exposed concrete wall in a school gymnasium fell under the real property exception to government immunity provided by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (the “Act”). In reversing the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County’s grant of summary judgment, the court held that merely because options for remedying a dangerous condition involve personalty it does not mean that the real property exception is inapplicable.
In this appeal from a final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the Commonwealth Court weighed in on whether certain unsuccessful bids for public infrastructure projects were subject to disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”). Specifically, the issue presented was whether a statute that ordered the public release of successful bidders, but was silent as to unsuccessful bidders, should be read to exclude unsuccessful bidders from disclosure, or whether the silence meant that the general requirements of the RTKL applied and disclosure was required. In finding unsuccessful proposals were not public records, the Court differentiated standalone statutes and open ended versus closed ended statutes when applying the disclosure requirements of the RTKL.
In this appeal from a final determination of the Office of Open Records, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether an agency’s failure to present evidence in support of their claimed exemption from disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), amounted to a default determination requiring disclosure. In finding that it did not, the court held that where the plain language of a request falls within an exemption, additional evidence is unnecessary.
Zaloga owned and operated a medical company that provided contracted services to correctional facilities. Upset over the handling of a dispute with a tire company located adjacent to his home, Zolaga launched political attacks against the Borough Council President and Mayor publically opposing their reelections. About a month after launching these attacks, Zaloga was notified that the County would not continue its contractual arrangement with Zolaga’s company after its current contract expired, but that it could compete with other providers for a new contract. Zolaga’s attorney informed him however, that according to conversations with Lackawanna County Prison Board members the Council President and Mayor were attempting to block his contract renewal due to his persistent opposition to their decisions regarding the tire facility. Ultimately however, the County unanimously voted to award the contract to Zolaga’s company. Zolaga then filed a complaint against the Borough of Moosic, the Borough Council, the Borough’s planning commission and zoning board, and various Borough officers alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, which the District Court granted for all defendants except the Borough President. His assertion of qualified immunity, the Court concluded, hinged upon fact questions that would need to be settled by a jury. The Council President appealed.
In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was asked to determine the scope of the “personal security” exception to disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”). The Court concluded that the home addresses of public employees are exempt from RTKL disclosure pursuant to the personal safety exception.
In this appeal of the final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR), the Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on what constitutes a sufficiently specific request under the Right to Know Law (RTKL). In affirming the OOR’s determination and ordering the disclosure of the subject records, the court found that it was sufficient for the requestor to ask for all emails to and from a specific employee over a finite period of time.
Published By:
