This case involved a dispute regarding the condemnation of land in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth Court was required to determine whether or not the owner of real property located in Holland was given adequate notice that its land would be condemned. In affirming the trial court’s determination, the Commonwealth Court held that the owner had been given adequate notice.
Pennsylvania Real Estate, Land Use, Zoning, and Municipal Lawyers
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Page 14 of 21
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 case, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether Edward Trusello (Trusello) was liable to Deep Meadows Civic Association (the Association), a home owner’s association, for home owner’s fees. In affirming the lower court, the Commonwealth Court held that Trusello neither had notice of any obligation to pay the Association nor received any benefit from the Association’s common area. Therefore, Trusello was not liable to the Association for any fees.
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.
In this case involving the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine (1) whether the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) grant of an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) is a final agency action and (2) whether, in the absence of judicial review, Hawkes Co. (Hawkes) had alternative remedies. The Court held that the grant of an approved JD is a final agency action. Furthermore, it held that Hawke was without alternative remedies besides judicial review.
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.
In this matter, the Commonwealth Court was asked to decide whether a housing cooperative board can impose a limitation on the number of dwelling units individual members can own. The court determined that such a policy was not authorized because the cooperative’s bylaws did not contain any such limitation. Such a policy, the court concluded, could only be imposed as an amendment to the cooperative’s bylaws.
This dispute involves a challenge to plans by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to improve State Route 222. The Third Circuit was asked to determine whether an economic injury alone falls within the “zone of interests” protected by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the case, holding that economic injury alone does not support standing under NEPA. The court also affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny these plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint because the allegations they sought to add still failed to establish standing.
Published By:
