Anne E. Covey

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.

business & regulatoryenvironmentproperty

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

taxespropertyprocedure

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.

federal powerprocedure

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.

procedure

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.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved RSR Electric, LLC's petition for review of a Unemployment Compensation Board of Review decision granting benefits to former employee Camryn Souchet after his termination. The employer had fired Souchet following his statement that he no longer wished to pursue electrical work or enroll in a formal apprenticeship program, though he inquired about returning to a prior role in another division. The court affirmed the Board's ruling that Souchet was eligible for benefits, finding substantial evidence that his unemployment was not due to voluntarily leaving work without necessitous cause under Section 802(b) or to willful misconduct under Section 802(e) of the UC Law. The core reasoning centered on the lack of specific deadlines or penalties in the job description for the suggested apprenticeship and the employer's failure to meet its burden of proving disqualification.

labor & employment

The case involved a challenge to an upset tax sale of a mixed-use property in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, where Sunday Sunshine Enterprises, LLC was the successful bidder. The property owner filed a petition to set aside the sale, arguing that the Tax Claim Bureau failed to provide proper notice as required by the Real Estate Tax Sale Law, particularly regarding the posting of the property. The trial court granted the petition after finding that the posting was not properly done or visible to the public. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the Bureau did not satisfy the notice requirements under Section 602(e)(3) because the notice was removed and handed to a tenant rather than remaining conspicuously posted.

taxesproperty

Nathaniel Fick sued the Pennsylvania State Police after his application for Act 235 certification to carry a firearm as a security guard was denied due to his prior simple assault conviction, which PSP deemed a disqualifying crime of violence. Fick sought declarations that simple assault is not a crime of violence under PSP regulations, that PSP's interpretation violates the Commonwealth Documents Law and the state and federal constitutions, and injunctive relief. The Commonwealth Court granted partial relief, declaring that PSP's interpretation violates the Pennsylvania Constitution's non-delegation doctrine, that only crimes of violence may disqualify applicants under the regulations, and that simple assault does not qualify as such. The court reasoned that the regulations limit disqualifications to crimes of violence as defined, and PSP lacked authority to broaden that interpretation without proper legislative delegation.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryguns

The case involved a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request by Debra Cruel to the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA) seeking an extensive set of records related to the purchase, financing, and condition of specific Harrisburg apartment properties (formerly MaClay Street Apartments) that were part of a bankruptcy proceeding. PHFA denied the request as insufficiently specific under Section 703 of the RTKL, but the Office of Open Records (OOR) granted the appeal and ordered disclosure. PHFA petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review, arguing the request lacked date ranges, was overly broad, and sought records outside its control. The court affirmed the OOR's determination, holding that the request's inclusion of property addresses, ownership details, HUD grant and project numbers, and transaction dates provided enough information to identify responsive records.

procedureproperty

The case involved Water Polo, I, L.P., owner of an apartment complex with multiple residential units served by a single water meter, seeking an adjustment to its sewer bills from the West Hanover Township Sewer Authority under Act 43 of 2021, which permits relief if the amount billed exceeds actual usage by 30% or more based on five years of data. The Authority denied the request after determining that Water Polo's flat-rate billing per equivalent dwelling unit did not meet the statutory threshold when properly calculated using averaged usage, and the trial court reversed that denial. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court and upheld the Authority's decision. The court reasoned that the Authority's flat fee structure spreads costs equally among domestic establishments, and the relevant 'amount billed' is the fixed rate rather than a planning figure of 180 gallons per day per unit, so no 30% overage was shown. The Authority's process and criteria for evaluating Act 43 claims were also upheld as consistent with the statute.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Reserve at Paxton Creek, LP, owner of a 160-unit apartment complex served by a single water meter, seeking a sewer rate adjustment from the Susquehanna Township Authority under Act 43 of 2021, which permits owners to request billing changes if the amount billed exceeds actual usage by 30% or more based on five years of data. The Authority denied the request after determining that its flat-rate billing system for residential customers (including the complex) did not tie rates directly to individual gallonage, and that the complex's average usage of 82.6 gallons per day did not exceed the township residential average of 89 gallons per day by the required threshold. The trial court granted mandamus and declaratory relief to Reserve LP, but the Commonwealth Court reversed, holding that the Authority properly applied a flat-rate structure, used averaging consistent with the statute, and that Reserve LP lacked a clear right to relief under Act 43. The court concluded the Authority's approach complied with the law and did not require adjustment.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a Right-to-Know Law request by Emily J. Mueller seeking records from the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities related to an administrative enforcement proceeding against TitleMax for alleged violations of usury laws. The Department partially denied the request, citing exemptions for noncriminal investigations, confidentiality provisions, attorney-client privilege, and other protections, while the Office of Open Records granted the appeal in part and denied it in part. Mueller appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the OOR's determination after reviewing the issues of whether the Department properly justified its withholdings and conducted an adequate search. The court held that the Department met its burdens through affidavits and other evidence showing the applicability of the claimed exemptions and the sufficiency of its records search.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved David B. Shambaugh's appeal of the State Civil Service Commission's decision upholding his removal from employment as a Juvenile Justice Specialist Supervisor at a youth development center operated by the Department of Human Services. Shambaugh was terminated for violating an emergency response policy by failing to assist during an incident requiring physical intervention, leaving a co-worker to be assaulted. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Commission's adjudication, holding that just cause for removal existed based on video evidence, witness statements, and policy requirements, and that Shambaugh had received due process through a pre-disciplinary conference where he presented his version of events.

labor & employment

Darius Carter petitioned for review of the Pennsylvania Parole Board's decision denying administrative relief from the revocation of his parole, which stemmed from his federal robbery convictions and resulted in a 30-month recommitment and recalculated maximum sentence date. Carter's appointed counsel filed an application to withdraw representation along with a no-merit Turner letter asserting that Carter's claims lacked merit. The Commonwealth Court first examined whether the Turner letter adequately explained counsel's review, listed the issues raised, and properly notified Carter of his rights before addressing the underlying parole claims. The court determined that the letter was deficient in its discussion of one issue and its documentation of notice to the client, and therefore denied the withdrawal application without prejudice to allow counsel to file a corrected letter or brief.

criminal lawprocedure

James Glover filed Right to Know Law requests with SEPTA seeking to inspect or copy body-worn camera footage that had previously been released to him under Act 22. SEPTA denied the requests, stating that Act 22—not the RTKL—governs access to such law-enforcement recordings, and the Office of Open Records dismissed Glover’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court then dismissed Glover’s statutory appeal as frivolous under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j)(1). The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that because Act 22 provides the exclusive procedure for obtaining the footage, Glover’s RTKL-based appeal lacked any arguable basis in law and transfer of the case would have been futile.

procedure

James Glover filed a statutory appeal under Act 22 after SEPTA provided body-worn camera footage from a July 2024 incident but with faces redacted and in DVD format, following his request for unredacted video. The trial court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, finding SEPTA had fulfilled the request within the required timeframe without issuing a denial. The Commonwealth Court vacated the dismissal and remanded, holding that the redactions amounted to a partial denial that required the trial court to evaluate whether the withholding was justified to protect criminal evidence or investigations and whether public or requester interests outweighed those concerns, drawing on analogous Right-to-Know Law precedent.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this case, an inmate at a state correctional facility sued two correctional officers individually for negligence after he tripped and fell on defective concrete while being escorted handcuffed to a recreation yard. The trial court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j)(1) because it failed to state a valid claim. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the officers were protected by sovereign immunity as their alleged conduct did not fall within any exception to immunity under the Sovereign Immunity Act. The court noted that the proper defendant for a real property defect claim would have been the Department of Corrections, which the plaintiff did not name, and additional procedural barriers such as statutes of limitations and notice requirements would bar relief.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

Mark Edie sued George Junior Republic in Pennsylvania for negligence after sustaining injuries when a grill fell on his arm while he was cleaning it in the facility's kitchen as an employee of Metz, a food service contractor. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, ruling that George Junior Republic was immune from the negligence action as a statutory employer under the Workers’ Compensation Act. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, concluding that the defendant met the statutory employer criteria by occupying the kitchen premises through daily presence and supervision of its own employees alongside Metz staff. The court rejected arguments that additional control or exclusivity was required beyond the occupancy shown in the record.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved an inmate at SCI Frackville, Michael C. Romig, who filed a pro se amended petition for review challenging the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' Inmate Mail and Incoming Publications Policy (DC-ADM 803) concerning delays in receiving general and legal mail. The Department and its Secretary filed preliminary objections, arguing the petition lacked specificity and failed to state a claim. The Commonwealth Court overruled the objection based on lack of specificity but sustained the demurrer, finding that the petition did not describe any actual injury from the mail delays or explain the arguable merit of any underlying claim Romig sought to pursue. As a result, the court dismissed the amended petition with prejudice.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights