Deshon M. Gibson petitioned for review of the Pennsylvania Parole Board's May 2024 decision denying administrative relief from its earlier order recommitting him as a convicted parole violator to serve six months' backtime, recalculating his maximum sentence, and denying credit for time spent at liberty on parole. Gibson had been released on parole in 2021 after serving part of a 10-to-20-year sentence for attempted murder and aggravated assault, but was arrested within two months for new drug and firearms offenses and later convicted. The Board explained its denial of credit by citing Gibson's unresolved drug issues and the short time between his release and rearrest. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, concluding that the Board had provided a contemporaneous, reasonable, and record-supported rationale for denying credit as required by applicable precedent.
The case involved Howland Company, LLC and John Evan challenging penalties imposed by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry for violations of the Lead Certification Act and associated regulations during lead abatement work. The Department had imposed a $14,000 civil penalty and a three-year suspension of their lead abatement licenses and certificates based on multiple safety and certification violations observed at several job sites. Petitioners argued that the violations were not proven and that the suspensions were excessive. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Department's order, finding that the violations were established and that the penalties were appropriate to protect public health and deter future misconduct.
business & regulatorylabor & employmentenvironment
The case involves wrongful death and survival claims brought by Pascal Lombardot, as administrator of the estate of Yu-Yuan Lin, following a fatal 2019 motor vehicle accident at an intersection in Whitpain Township where a school bus driven by Dominic McNamee for the Wissahickon School District collided with another vehicle that turned into its path, striking the decedent's car. The trial court granted summary judgment to the School District, McNamee, and the Township. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court addressed motions to quash, concluding that the trial court's November 21, 2024 orders were interlocutory because they did not dispose of all claims against all remaining parties and had not been rendered final by discontinuances or other court action. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction and quashed the appeals.
The case centered on a long-running dispute over Carlino's plans to develop a shopping center on its property in East Brandywine Township, which required building a connector road across adjacent land owned by L&R Partnership and involved a 2014 condemnation and a 2019 development approval with conditions on traffic impact fees. The trial court granted Carlino a permanent injunction barring the Appellants (Brandywine Village Associates, L&R, and related parties) from interfering with the project and excluded their proffered evidence under the doctrine of collateral estoppel from a prior declaratory judgment action. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court determined that collateral estoppel did not apply because the issues and parties in the prior action were not identical in the required way. The court therefore vacated the trial court's order granting the injunction and remanded for further proceedings, including potential reconsideration of the excluded evidence.
The case involved Radnor Township appealing a trial court ruling that vacated its business privilege tax assessments on the membership dues, fees, and assessments collected by Overbrook Golf Club and Radnor Valley Country Club. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court, concluding that these revenues are not subject to the Township's tax. The core reasoning was that the Local Tax Enabling Act expressly excludes membership dues, fees, or assessments of nonprofit organizations such as golf clubs from local business privilege taxation, and that member-owned clubs are not engaged in a taxable business because their members act as collective owners rather than customers purchasing services.
The case involved an accounting firm's appeal of an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order granting benefits to a former employee who voluntarily resigned, claiming a hostile work environment under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. The claimant alleged issues such as being ignored, spoken down to, and subjected to profanity, but the referee denied benefits after finding she had not informed her employer of these problems before quitting. The Board reversed the referee and awarded benefits, but the Commonwealth Court reversed the Board, holding that the claimant failed to prove a necessitous and compelling reason to quit because she did not communicate her concerns to management or make reasonable efforts to preserve her employment, and that post-resignation conduct was irrelevant. The court emphasized that continued work was available and the claimant's actions did not demonstrate she had no choice but to leave.