In this appeal out of Berks County, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was asked to construe the language of the utility service facilities exception (“Utility Exception”) to governmental immunity contained in the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (“Tort Claims Act”). Finding the Commonwealth Court erred by not applying the Utility Exception, the Court reversed.
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 7 of 21
In this direct appeal from a decision of the Commonwealth Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the text of the Environmental Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution (Art. 1, § 27) was the appropriate standard of judicial review for determining the constitutionality of Commonwealth agency actions. In so ruling, the Court expressly rejected the balancing test established by the Commonwealth Court in Payne v. Kassab, 312 A.2d 86 (Pa. Commw. 1973), which had been used for decades to determine whether state action was in violation of the Environmental Rights Amendment.
In this appeal from the final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that motor vehicle recordings (“MVRs”) created by Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) officers responding to an auto accident were not per se protected from disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) as “criminal investigative records,” nor were they per se protected “investigative records” under the Criminal History Record Information Act (“CHRIA”).
In this petition to enforce a final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine how can enforce OOR determinations where no appeal has been taken of that determination. The Court concluded that a mandamus action, not a petition to enforce, was the appropriate legal vehicle, but found no error in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County’s denial of the petition on the merits.
In this appeal from a determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR), the Commonwealth Court found that information voluntarily submitted to a Commonwealth agency and which was not needed by the agency to perform its duties, did not constitute a “record” under the RTKL. As such, the requested information did not have to be disclosed.
In this challenge of the constitutionality of an ordinance restricting protests and picketing within 20 feet of the entrance to a healthcare facility, the Third Circuit remanded the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The Third Circuit found that the District Court had improperly placed the burden of demonstrating likelihood of success on the plaintiffs, rather than the municipality, as is required in First Amendment cases.
In this case out of Adams County the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court’s determination that upon the sale of a single lot in a subdivision development a developer’s interest in the platted roads depicted on the subdivision plan transforms from a fee interest into an easement interest. Such a determination, the Court found, would absurdly result in an easement without a servient estate, which is not possible.
In this appeal out of Allegheny County, the Commonwealth Court was presented with an appeal from the reversal of a Borough Council’s denial of a conditional use application. In affirming the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County’s reversal, the Commonwealth Court found that Borough Council had not properly shifted the burden of proof to objectors once the applicant had satisfied all objective conditional use requirements in the zoning ordinance.
In the first of two cases relating to the subject property, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County affirming the London Grove Township Zoning Hearing Board’s (“ZHB”) denial of a variance to Delchester Developers (“Delchester”) to develop two adjoining properties. The Court concluded that the ZHB had properly interpreted its zoning ordinance, that Delchester’s validity challenge of the Borough’s stormwater ordinance was not within the ZHB’s jurisdiction, and the Township’s “net out” provision was neither a violation of due process nor an illegal taking.
In an interlocutory appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, the Commonwealth Court addressed whether 21 P.S. §351 (“Section 351”) imposed a requirement that all mortgages and mortgage assignments be recorded, and whether county Recorders of Deeds (“Recorders”) have the right to enforce such a requirement. The Commonwealth Court concluded that no such requirement existed, and, even if it did, Recorders had no right to enforce it.
Published By:
