Brigid Landy Khuri of McNees Wallace & Nurick. Courtesy photo Attorney Fee Provision in Pa.'s Clean Streams Law May Run Afoul of 14th Amendment
This article argues that requiring a permittee to pay the attorney fees of a third-party challenger to a permit in the absence of bad faith on the part of the permittee would violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
July 21, 2023 at 02:43 PM
9 minute read
Special Sections
Imagine you've purchased some land and plan to build your dream home. You know you need several government approvals, and your contractor says this includes something called a "Chapter 102″ permit. No problem. The folks at the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) are helpful. You provide them with everything they ask for, and the permit is issued. Then, you get a "notice of appeal." A neighbor does not want you to build and has challenged DEP's permitting decision. After several months of litigation, DEP tweaks an error it made in the permit and then settles the lawsuit. Now your neighbor wants you to pay for his lawyer's fees in that litigation. Can they do that? Following a recent decision from Pennsylvania's Supreme Court, the answer is probably yes. If you're thinking that feels unfair—maybe even unconstitutional—you may be right.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Special Section: 2024 Labor & Employment/Workers' Compensation
Insurers Are Misusing IMEs to Prematurely Cut Off Injured Workers' Benefits
7 minute read
Supreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute read
Membership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1New York’s Proposed Legislation Restraining Transfer of Real Property
- 2Withers Hires Lawyers, Staff From LA Trusts and Estates Boutique
- 3To Speed Criminal Discovery, NY Bill Proposes Police-to-Prosecutor Pipeline For Records
- 4Merchan Rejects Trump's Bid to Delay Manhattan Sentencing
- 5High-Low Settlement Agreement 'Does Not Alone Establish Bias:' State High Court Affirms $20M Med Mal Verdict
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
