The case involved landowner R. Bruce McNew's challenge to East Marlborough Township's Zoning Ordinance Section 1821, which imposed requirements for timber harvesting permits, including submission of a professional forester-signed plan, scaled feature maps, and a 45-day pre-application filing period. McNew sought summary relief to declare the ordinance invalid and enjoin its enforcement after the township denied his permit application for clear-cutting trees on his property, despite compliance with state DEP and Chester County Conservation District erosion and sedimentation rules. The Commonwealth Court denied the application, reasoning that material factual disputes existed regarding whether the proposed timbering qualified as a normal agricultural operation under state law, precluding summary disposition, and that the movant's evidence relied on oral testimony and incomplete documentation that could not support judgment as a matter of law.
This case arose from a lawsuit by the co-administrators of Mamdouh Gabra's estate against the Borough of Prospect Park after Gabra was injured when a vehicle struck a concrete base in a municipal park during a turnaround maneuver on a paved pathway. The Borough moved for summary judgment asserting governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, but the trial court denied the motion in part as to the streets and sidewalks exceptions. The Commonwealth Court reversed on appeal, ruling that the pathway did not qualify as a street under the Act's streets exception because it was not intended for vehicular travel as part of the local agency's street system, and therefore the adjacent concrete base could not constitute a sidewalk within a street's right-of-way. The decision focused on statutory definitions and prior case law interpreting the scope of the Act's immunity exceptions without reaching other issues such as the Recreation Act.
The case involved L. Paul Dieffenbach, Jr. appealing a trial court order that denied his challenge to a 2020 real estate tax bill issued by Rose Tree Media School District for his property in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Dieffenbach sought to reduce the tax amount, first citing the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on the school year and later raising constitutional claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution's Uniformity Clause regarding taxation of seniors, among other issues. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Section 314 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law does not permit challenges to the validity of the tax levied, as such questions fall outside the scope of allowable defenses in tax claim proceedings before the Bureau or trial court. The court reasoned that the statute explicitly excludes disputes involving the validity of the tax from the permitted grounds for setting aside or reducing a claim.
Arnetta Jackson-Johnson appealed the Wilkes-Barre Housing Authority's termination of her Section 8 housing voucher, which was based on her failure to provide true and complete information about her incarceration and location while the Authority processed her lease documents. The Luzerne County Common Pleas Court granted the Authority's motion to dismiss her petition for appeal. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that under federal HUD regulations the Authority needed only to show a violation of the program's family obligations requiring truthful disclosures, which Jackson-Johnson's own admissions in her petition established, and that proof of actual fraud or enumerated crimes was not required.
The case involved Susan Noto and Zillow challenging Luzerne County's $10,100 fee for providing electronic 2023 property assessment files (CAMA data) in response to a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request. The County had directed the requesters to its website for the data but required payment of the fee, which the appellants argued exceeded duplication costs and reflected bad faith coordination with other counties to recoup data acquisition expenses. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the appeal, holding that RTKL Section 1307 allows agencies to charge fees based on the reasonable market value for duplicating the records rather than solely actual duplication costs. The court also found no evidence of bad faith by the County and declined to award litigation costs.
The case involved Frank James Kapish's appeal from a trial court order upholding the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's 12-month suspension of his driver's license, imposed under the Vehicle Code following his 2015 guilty plea to DUI in Virginia. Kapish argued that a nearly 10-year delay in resolving his appeal, caused by repeated court administrative errors including multiple notices to terminate for inactivity and failures to schedule hearings, violated his due process rights. The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's denial of the appeal. The court reasoned that the governmental delay eliminated any nexus between the suspension and public safety interests given Kapish's clean driving record over the period, and that imposing the suspension after such time would be prejudicial.