This case involved Charles E. Eckenrode, who owned a home zoned for single-family use in Pittsburgh and rented it to six unrelated tenants, exceeding the zoning code's limit of three unrelated persons per family. The city charged him with violating the zoning code for failing to obtain a certificate of occupancy after the change in use, resulting in a conviction and $15,000 in fines by the trial court. Eckenrode appealed, arguing there was no permit requirement, he was convicted under a non-existent code section, and the ordinance violated equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the zoning ordinance is valid economic and social legislation rationally related to public health, safety, and welfare, and that constitutional challenges under rational basis review fail.
This case involved an employer's petition to review and suspend a widow's ongoing workers' compensation fatal claim benefits after her husband's death in a work-related car accident, on the grounds that she was capable of self-support. The Workers' Compensation Judge dismissed the petition, the Appeal Board affirmed, and the Commonwealth Court upheld that decision. The court reasoned that Section 307 of the Workers' Compensation Act, as interpreted in prior precedent like Oknefski, provides no mechanism to terminate established spousal death benefits for widows based on self-support capability, and extending such a remedy would create an equal protection violation by treating widows and widowers differently. The opinion declined to address the constitutional claim separately, finding no statutory basis for suspension.
This case involved a challenge to Sewickley Township Ordinance 2012-6, which rezoned two small adjacent parcels (a 1.5-acre township-owned former school building and a .69-acre private vacant lot) from public facilities and rural village districts to community commercial zoning. The Sewickley Township Zoning Hearing Board found the rezoning created an illegal spot zone that singled out the parcels for different treatment primarily for the economic benefit of the private owners and could create traffic or safety issues. The Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County reversed the ZHB's decision, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed that reversal, upholding the ordinance as valid.
The case involved the Keyes family appealing the Zoning Hearing Board of East Whiteland Township's grant of variances and a special exception to allow expansion of a dog grooming, daycare, and boarding business on a property that became a non-conforming use after rezoning. The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the Board's decision, and the Commonwealth Court also affirmed. The court reasoned that the business demonstrated a hardship because newer competitors offered indoor facilities and artificial turf, making the expansion essential for competitiveness and viability, and that the proposal would have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood, satisfying the ordinance requirements for the special exception and variances.
This case concerned tax assessments on 152 unsold residential condominium units and one commercial unit owned by Dockside Associates in a Philadelphia building that had been converted to condominiums. Dockside appealed the assessments, arguing for a lower collective valuation based on an income capitalization approach treating the units as a fractured condominium, while the City of Philadelphia assessed each unit separately using a sales comparison approach based on individual market sales. The trial court upheld the city's assessments, excluded certain prior appraisals offered for impeachment, and rejected Dockside's valuation. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's exclusion of dissimilar prior appraisals was proper and that its findings were supported by substantial evidence.
This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Lallie Robinson against Service Plus Delivery Systems, Inc. and the State Workers' Insurance Fund after a 2006 work-related motor vehicle accident. The employer and insurer filed a review petition seeking to offset or recover benefits paid to Robinson based on his separate $95,000 settlement of an underinsured motorist claim arising from the same incident. The Workers' Compensation Judge granted the petition, finding that the employer had not waived its subrogation rights, and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board affirmed. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that under Section 319 of the Workers' Compensation Act, the employer's right to subrogation is absolute to prevent double recovery once liability for benefits is established and payments are made, regardless of the timing of the third-party settlement.