Jim Flaherty

This case involved objectors challenging the nomination petition of Karen Emenheiser, a Republican candidate for State Representative in Pennsylvania's 95th Legislative District, alleging that her petition contained only about 446 valid signatures rather than the 800 required by the Election Code. The court dismissed the objectors' petition to set aside the nomination. The core reasoning was that the objectors failed to serve the Secretary of the Commonwealth with the petition and hearing notice by the filing deadline of March 14, 2006, as the Secretary received service on March 16, 2006, and such timely service is mandatory, rendering the objection petition void.

electionsprocedure

The case concerned whether the Hahn Home, a private residential facility for elderly unmarried women founded under a 1920s charitable trust, qualified for real estate tax exemption on a portion of its property after the York City School District challenged its long-standing exempt status in 1993. The trial court reversed the Board of Assessment Appeals and granted exemption, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The court applied the HUP test under the Institutions of Purely Public Charity Act, finding that the Home advanced a charitable purpose by providing housing, meals, medical care, and other services primarily through donated assets and investment income without private profit, benefited an indefinite class of residents, and operated with substantial gratuitous elements even as assets grew. It rejected arguments that asset transfers by residents or staff housing defeated the charitable character, holding that the overall operation satisfied the criteria for tax-exempt status.

taxesproperty

The case involved Waldron Street Book Company, operating as Bradley’s Book Cellar, which petitioned for the appointment of viewers under the Eminent Domain Code, claiming that street renovations, building implosions for a new department store, and plans for a retail development by the City of Pittsburgh and the Urban Redevelopment Authority resulted in a de facto taking of its leased premises due to reduced access and a decline in sales. The trial court sustained preliminary objections from the City and URA, vacating the appointment of viewers, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. The court reasoned that Bradley’s failed to prove exceptional circumstances causing a substantial deprivation of property use, as sales declined only five percent rather than the alleged fifty percent, pedestrian and vehicular access was maintained during construction, and there was no planned condemnation of the specific property. It distinguished the case from prior precedent where a de facto taking was found due to prolonged uncertainty and direct interference.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a workers' compensation dispute between two employers over liability for a claimant's back injury. Claimant alleged that a September 1996 incident while working for C.P. Martin Ford caused an aggravation of a prior 1993 injury sustained at Norristown Ford, leading to competing claim and reinstatement petitions. The WCJ granted the claim petition against the second employer after crediting certain medical testimony, and the Board affirmed. The court vacated and remanded, holding that the WCJ had not made the necessary factual finding on whether the 1996 incident materially contributed to the disability, which determines which employer is liable under precedent.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim arising from a 1992 workplace fall in which Carl Crews sustained multiple injuries, including wrist fractures, vision loss, brain damage, and loss of use of his left arm. Crews petitioned to amend the notice of compensation payable to include additional injuries and sought specific loss benefits under Section 306(c) of the Workers' Compensation Act for the eye and upper left extremity, while continuing total disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Judge granted specific loss benefits for the eye but denied them for the arm, finding the arm loss was not separate and distinct from the total disability; the Appeal Board affirmed this and reversed an award of attorney fees. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the denial of arm-specific loss benefits due to insufficient evidence of a distinct disability and addressing the claimant's burden to prove material mistakes in the NCP. The core reasoning centered on statutory requirements for specific loss awards when total disability benefits are already being paid and the claimant's failure to meet the evidentiary burden for the arm claim.

labor & employment

The case involved Shawnee Development, Inc., a Pennsylvania real estate company that underwent debt restructuring after defaulting on loans, resulting in $38 million in forgiven debt over four years while remaining insolvent both before and after. The Department of Revenue included this cancellation of indebtedness in the company's book income when recalculating its Capital Stock Tax liability under Section 601(a) of the Tax Reform Code, leading to higher assessments for fiscal years 1994 and 1995, which the Board of Finance and Revenue affirmed. The court reversed the Board's orders, holding that the forgiven debt should be excluded from average net income and net worth calculations for tax purposes. The core reasoning was that the statute ties book income to federal tax returns and, in the absence of contrary state guidance, federal tax law under IRC §108 excludes such income for taxpayers who remain insolvent after discharge, a status the parties stipulated here.

taxesbusiness & regulatory