Mary Hannah Leavitt

The case concerned Misingwa Land Trust's appeal from the denial of a real estate tax exemption for seven parcels of land in Beaver County, which the trust acquired for conservation, open space preservation, and historical remediation tied to American Indian cultures. The trial court rejected the exemption, concluding that the nonprofit did not qualify as a purely public charity under Article VIII, Section 2(a)(v) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court held that the trial court misapplied the constitutional standards for public charity status and that the record was incomplete regarding public availability of the properties and dissemination of information about them. The court therefore vacated the trial court's orders and remanded for additional evidence and a new determination on both the constitutional and statutory requirements under the Consolidated County Assessment Law.

taxespropertyenvironment

The case involved Michael Kelly appealing the grant of a zoning variance to Union United Methodist Church by the Haverford Township Zoning Hearing Board, allowing the church to install amber-colored LED lights in its sign instead of the white lights mandated by the township's zoning ordinance. The trial court denied the appeal, ruling it untimely but alternatively upholding the variance on the merits. On further appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, holding that although the initial appeal was premature, it was cured by a supplemental filing, and that the variance was properly granted as a dimensional variance because the church demonstrated unnecessary hardship and the amber lights were less impactful than permitted white lights. The court concluded that the Zoning Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and its decision conformed to the law.

property

In this case, inmate Derrick King appealed the trial court's dismissal of his motion to postpone payment of fines and costs imposed as part of his 2018 sentence for persons not to possess firearms, arguing that the sentencing court failed to conduct an ability-to-pay hearing as required by 42 Pa. C.S. §9726(c). The trial court had dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, viewing it as a challenge to Act 84 deductions from his inmate account by the Department of Corrections, which falls under the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court held that King's motion, when read liberally, challenged the legality of the underlying sentence rather than the method of collection, citing precedent that such challenges implicate the sentence's validity and belong in the court of common pleas. The court therefore vacated the trial court's order and remanded the matter for disposition on the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

Stephen Hardnock petitioned for review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's denial of his claim for benefits after he resigned from his position as a full-time flex supervisor at Sheetz Inc. The Board affirmed the referee's decision that Hardnock was ineligible under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law because he voluntarily quit without a necessitous and compelling reason. Hardnock had sustained a head injury at work, was placed on medical leave, and later resigned citing relocation that placed employer's stores outside commuting distance, but he did not attend the referee hearing, request a transfer, or present evidence of efforts to remain employed. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the record showed continuing work was available and that transportation inconvenience does not justify a voluntary quit absent proof of an insurmountable barrier despite reasonable efforts to remedy it.

labor & employment

Derrick King, an inmate convicted of aggravated assault, appealed the trial court's dismissal of his motion to postpone payment of fines and costs for lack of jurisdiction. King sought to halt Act 84 deductions from his inmate account, arguing that the sentencing court imposed the financial obligations without first determining his ability to pay as required by 42 Pa.C.S. §9726 and Commonwealth v. Ford. The trial court viewed the challenge as concerning the method of collection under Act 84 and thus outside its jurisdiction. The Commonwealth Court held that King's motion contested the validity of the underlying sentence rather than the collection process, meaning the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore vacated the dismissal and remanded for a merits decision.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved objectors Scott E. and Kathryn A. MacDonald appealing a trial court order that upheld the Lower Makefield Township Zoning Hearing Board's grant of four dimensional variances to landowners Gabriel Deck and Alexandra Calukovic-Deck. The variances allowed construction of a single-family home on two adjoining vacant lots subject to floodplain, wetland, easement, and access restrictions under the township zoning ordinance, with conditions requiring a floodplain survey and township approval of the stormwater management plan. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the zoning board did not abuse its discretion or improperly delegate authority, as the conditions ensured compliance with resource protection rules and addressed concerns about impervious surface coverage and storm events on the limited buildable area. The court rejected arguments that the variances violated ordinance standards for setbacks, disturbances, and driveway width, finding the board's decision supported by evidence of unique site constraints.

propertyenvironmentprocedure

JMAC Investments, LLC appealed the denial of its applications for dimensional variances to build a single-family dwelling on a 4,000 square foot lot in a residential zoning district requiring larger lots. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court's affirmance of the Zoning Hearing Board's decision, holding that the property did not merge with an adjacent lot and thus qualified as a lawful nonconforming lot eligible for variances. The court reasoned that the zoning ordinance lacked a merger provision, the undersized lot created an unnecessary hardship, and the right to develop runs with the land; it remanded for consideration of de minimis variances for setbacks and applicability of a buffer requirement.

property

Andres Prieto sued several Philadelphia police officers and the city, alleging that during his February 2022 arrest the officers committed assault and battery by kicking and punching him, causing facial lacerations and a fractured sternum. The trial court granted summary judgment to the officers and denied Prieto leave to amend his complaint. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that body-camera footage undisputedly showed the officers using a taser twice and then handcuffing Prieto after he resisted, with no evidence of kicking or punching. The court concluded that the officers' use of force was objectively reasonable as a matter of law, rendering any amendment futile and summary judgment proper.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the City of Scranton seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Thomas Coyne and his company AFG Media from disclosing personal information, such as names, social security numbers, and health details, from personnel files of former City employees that Coyne had photographed after discovering the boxes left outside City Hall for recycling. The trial court granted the injunction, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed that order. The court held that the files remained City property under a local ordinance that prohibits scavenging of recyclables placed for collection, making Coyne's access and threatened disclosure unlawful, and that the City could enforce privacy protections on behalf of the affected individuals. The court further determined that Coyne had waived any challenge to the City's standing by not raising it in the trial court and that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying discovery requests because the material facts were undisputed.

free speechpropertyprocedure

Ronald P. Harper, Jr. appealed two trial court orders in a case alleging violations of Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act by Lancaster County commissioners and officials, including claims that meeting minutes were incomplete and that Harper was improperly removed from a public meeting after objecting to them. The Commonwealth Court quashed the appeal. The court reasoned that the August 23, 2024 order granting a non-suit was not a final, appealable order because no judgment had been entered on the docket, and Harper failed to perfect the appeal by praecipe as directed. The underlying claims involved Harper's rights to object to minutes and attend meetings under the Act.

procedurefree speech

Patrick Errickson petitioned for review of a Department of Human Services adjudication that denied his request for an exception to the 40/60 hour rule and travel rule limiting compensation for home and community-based Medicaid waiver services provided by his parents. The Department had affirmed an administrative law judge's determination that it lacked authority to invalidate or modify rules established by regulation. Errickson argued that the rules were not lawfully promulgated, violated other regulations and laws, and that the hearing process denied due process. The Commonwealth Court reversed the Department's August 20, 2024 adjudication, following the reasoning set forth in its opinion in the related case Dunkelberger v. Department of Human Services.

healthcareprocedure

The case concerned Bret Dunkelberger's challenge to the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services' denial of his request for an exception to the so-called 40/60 rule limiting combined family-provider hours and a related travel cap under the state's Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services waiver program, which provides in-home care for individuals with disabilities. Dunkelberger argued that these limits were not validly issued regulations and thus could not lawfully restrict his approved services. The Commonwealth Court reversed the Department's adjudication, holding that the rules had never been promulgated through the required processes of the Commonwealth Documents Law, Regulatory Review Act, and Commonwealth Attorneys Act, rendering them null and void. The court concluded that the Department therefore erred in treating the rules as binding norms that precluded the requested exception.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved James Powell appealing the trial court's dismissal of his petition to set aside an upset tax sale of his residence by the Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau for delinquent real estate taxes. Powell had purchased the property via an unrecorded 2018 deed, occupied it since 2015, and made multiple tax payments and entered an installment agreement with the Bureau, which addressed notices to him c/o the prior record owner. The trial court ruled Powell was not an owner entitled to statutory notice under the Real Estate Tax Sale Law. The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding that Powell qualified as an owner due to his open possession and the Bureau's actual knowledge of his interest, requiring strict compliance with all notice provisions including personal notice to owner-occupants that the Bureau failed to provide.

taxesproperty

Duane Holmes appealed the dismissal of his ninth amended complaint against the City of Allentown, Lehigh County, and district attorney officials, seeking the return of property seized during a 2015 criminal investigation or compensation for its value. The trial court had sustained preliminary objections, ruling that Holmes's claims for replevin and conversion were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the limitations period began with the 2015 forfeiture order and subsequent denials of his petitions for return of property, making his civil claims untimely. The court noted that the affirmative defense of statute of limitations was properly raised and clear from the pleadings.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerned a homeowners association's lawsuit against a unit owner in a planned community to collect unpaid base assessments for common expenses under the community's declaration and the Uniform Planned Community Act. The trial court entered judgment for the association on the relevant count, awarding damages and attorney fees. The Commonwealth Court vacated that judgment and remanded for dismissal, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the unit owner's wife was an indispensable party who had not been joined.

propertyprocedure

The case involved West Lampeter Solar 1, LLC's request for a special exception to build a 25-acre agrivoltaics solar farm on land in the Agricultural District of West Lampeter Township, which would generate electricity and allow sheep grazing underneath the panels. The Zoning Hearing Board denied the request, finding that the project was a non-agricultural use exceeding the 5-acre limit for such uses under the township's zoning ordinance, a decision affirmed by the trial court. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court held that agrivoltaics does not qualify as an agricultural use because the principal purpose is electricity production rather than farming, and the ordinance restricts non-agricultural uses to no more than five acres in the district. The court therefore affirmed the denial of the special exception.

propertybusiness & regulatoryenvironment

The case concerned a landowner's proposal to build a professional office building in a commercial zoning district, where the township zoning officer required a 100-foot side-yard setback from an adjacent parcel that had a single-family home condemned as uninhabitable. The landowner argued that the residential use had ended due to the condemnation and sought either reversal of the setback requirement or a dimensional variance. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's ruling upholding the Zoning Hearing Board's decision, holding that under the Cecil Township Unified Development Ordinance the residential use runs with the land and continues despite the condemnation. The court further concluded that the landowner failed to demonstrate the unnecessary hardship needed for a variance, as the property could theoretically be developed in compliance with the ordinance by removing the existing dwelling on his own parcel.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved three petitioners who filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and extraordinary relief in the Commonwealth Court, seeking orders compelling the Mifflin County District Attorney’s Office, the Mayor’s Office for Lewistown, and other state and local officials to investigate and prosecute specific individuals for alleged assaults and related crimes against two of the petitioners, as well as to address claims of police misconduct and provide additional relief such as victim assistance. The respondents filed motions for judgment on the pleadings, arguing lack of standing, immunity under the Tort Claims Act and quasi-judicial immunity, the statute of limitations, and that mandamus cannot compel discretionary prosecutorial decisions. The court granted the motions and dismissed the petition, holding that one petitioner lacked standing, claims were time-barred by the six-month limitations period for mandamus actions, respondents were protected by immunity, and the requested relief was unavailable because prosecution decisions are discretionary rather than ministerial duties.

criminal lawprocedure

Andrew Flitter sued the Office of Judicial Records Criminal Division of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas, seeking $4,580 plus costs as a holder in due course under the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code after the Office stopped payment on two checks cashed by his company. The Office filed preliminary objections asserting lack of jurisdiction and sovereign immunity. The Common Pleas Court transferred the case to the Commonwealth Court, which accepted all well-pleaded facts as true but sustained the sovereign immunity objection. The court reasoned that the Office is an arm of the Commonwealth government and Flitter's claim for damages from stopped payments did not fall within any of the nine statutory exceptions to sovereign immunity under 42 Pa. C.S. §8522, nor did it qualify under the limited contract waiver in the Procurement Code. The complaint was therefore dismissed.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Kevin Souffrant, an incarcerated petitioner, sought review of the Office of Open Records' final determination upholding the Pennsylvania State Police's denial of his Right-to-Know Law request for four forensic laboratory reports generated during a criminal investigation tied to specific case and report numbers. The court affirmed the denial, concluding that the records were exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b)(16) of the Right-to-Know Law because they relate to or result from a criminal investigation. The core reasoning was that the State Police satisfied its burden through a verification confirming the records' investigative nature, including DNA information, and that claims for exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland must be pursued via post-conviction relief rather than a records request.

criminal lawprocedure