In this dispute out of Adams County, a Property Owner attempted to prevent a Township from clear cutting a portion of his property in accordance with a 10 year old right-of-way agreement (“ROW Agreement”) for a sewage easement. In affirming the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County’s grant of declaratory relief to the Township, the Commonwealth Court emphasized that the trial court had merely been interpreting the ROW agreement, and various factual disputes raised by the Property Owner were not properly before the lower court.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Municipal Law (Page 5 of 9)
In this case, the Commonwealth Court was asked to apply the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) and determine whether financial information contained in contracts between state agencies and outside vendors is excluded from disclosure through RTKL requests. In reversing the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) final determination, the Court concluded that such information was specifically excluded under § 708(b)(26) and could be redacted by the responding state agency.
This case required the Commonwealth Court to determine whether or not a county commissioner’s handwritten notes regarding phone conversations with private citizens, which were never relied on for official action, constituted public records under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (RTKL). Ultimately, the court held that these notes did not document a transaction or official business activity under the RTKL. Therefore, it affirmed the trial court’s decision that the notes were not subject to disclosure.
This Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) dispute involved fourteen consolidated cases. Fourteen State System of Higher Education Universities (the Universities) appealed from an Office of Open Records (OOR) final determination that granted two requesters access to records related to the Universities’ budgets and finances. The Commonwealth Court was required to address (1) whether the requests were specific enough to enable the Universities to locate responsive records, (2) whether the large number of records requested made the request non-specific, and (3) whether the Universities should be given more time to review the records due to the large number of records requested. The court held that an agency is not relieved of its duty to produce responsive records due to the size of the request, but an agency may be granted a time extension by the OOR if the agency can show that more time is truly needed for proper review.
This Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) dispute forced the Commonwealth Court to weigh the evidence presented by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that it did not possess specific records. In doing so, the court affirmed the Office of Open Records final determination that DEP did not have the records requested by Smith Butz, LLC.
This case required the Commonwealth Court to determine whether or not the Borough of Midland (Midland) was immune from suit in a dispute involving utility service facilities. In affirming the trial court, the Commonwealth Court held that Midland was immune. The plaintiffs failed to show that (1) the facilities were in a dangerous condition and (2) expenditures made to correct a dangerous condition were a cognizable injury.
In this Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) case, the Commonwealth Court had to determine whether it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a denial issued by a district attorney’s office. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform (PFUR) requested itemized details of the dates, times, and durations of phone calls between all current and former members of the Centre County District Attorney’s Office (the D.A.) and members of the judiciary using government-issued cell phones, as well as the name and salary of the D.A.’s RTKL appeals officer. The Commonwealth Court transferred the case to the Centre County Court of Common Pleas after determining that the appeal was improperly filed.
This dispute required the Third Circuit to determine whether or not a “speech buffer” surrounding abortion clinics was constitutional. The ordinance creating this buffer (the Ordinance) was passed in 2005 and prohibits congregating, patrolling, picketing, or demonstrating within fifteen feet “from any entrance to [a] hospital and or health care facility.” The court vacated the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims, reasoning that the City of Pittsburgh failed its burden to show that the Ordinance was the least restrictive method of achieving its goal.
The Commonwealth Court held that the Township of Salem (the Township) was entitled to collect damages from Miller Penn Development, LLC (Developer) for incomplete improvements Developer was required to install under the Township’s subdivision and land development ordinance (SALDO). The court held that the applicable statute of limitation did not apply to the Township’s claim, pursuant to the nullum tempus doctrine, and awarded the township damages for the cost of repairing the improvements.
This case required the Commonwealth Court to construe the Right to Know Law (RTKL), 65 P.S. §§ 67.101–67.3104, together with the Pennsylvania Voter Registration Act (VRA), 25 Pa. C.S. §§ 1101–1906. The court affirmed a decision by the Office of Open Records (OOR) and held that the RTKL does not govern the disclosure of voter registration information because the VRA and the Pennsylvania Department of State’s (DOS) pertinent regulations expressly establish the procedures for making that information public. As such, the DOS may require compliance with the VRA and relevant regulations even if such a request is submitted under the RTKL.
Published By:
