Filter This View

  • Circleville Road Partners, L.P. v. Twp. of Ferguson

    Publication Date: 2019-06-03
    Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Fizzano Cannon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0643

    The trial court did not err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion when it held that a new township zoning ordinance was a text amendment rather than a zoning map change subject to additional notice requirements. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.

  • Wilson v. Commonwealth

    Publication Date: 2019-06-03
    Practice Area: Administrative Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Brobson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0659

    Trial court did not err in concluding that officer had police authority to stop appellant and invoke the implied consent law in another township, in appellant's challenge to his license suspension, because officer had reasonable grounds to believe appellant was driving under the influence of alcohol when he measured appellant's speed as 15 miles above the limit, followed him to another township and smelled alcohol and observed appellant had red and glassy eyes. Affirmed.

  • Freeman-Bennett v. York County Bd. of Assessment Appeals

    Publication Date: 2019-06-03
    Practice Area: Tax
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Brobson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0650

    Denial of disabled veteran property tax exemption properly denied where applicant failed to present evidence of an actual determination of her financial need for the exemption, since a presumption that she would have received such a determination was insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • W.J. Menkins Holdings, LLC v. Douglass Twp.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-27
    Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
    Industry: Transportation
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Covey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0610

    Applicant challenged the conditions imposed by the zoning board for approval of its variance and the court found the hours of operation condition was reasonable and supported by the record but the condition that applicant comply with the land use development regulations was an abuse of discretion. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

  • Lower Swatara Twp. v. Labor Relations Bd.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-27
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Covey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0614

    Board correctly held that §604 of PERA did not prohibit a union from representing township public works employees and full-time and regular part-time act 111 police officers because board's interpretation properly respected police officers act 111 rights to bargain collectively without PERA's intrusion therein. Affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act & Forms 2024

    Authors: PAUL DEPETRIS

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Coppola v. Smith Twp. Bd. of Supervisors

    Publication Date: 2019-05-27
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Land Use and Planning
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Simpson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0622

    Mere submission of a letter to a local board of supervisors objecting to a land use application was insufficient to confer party status or standing upon the objector, especially when the letter was not made part of the record or considered by the board of supervisors. Order of the trial court vacated, case remanded.

  • Estate of Guyaux v. Twp. of North Fayette

    Publication Date: 2019-05-27
    Practice Area: Government
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Leavitt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0617

    Trial court did not err in awarding costs to township and sheriff for the removal of a gun collection from a house that was a public nuisance and did not err in ordering the proceeds from the sale of the collection be used to pay such costs. Affirmed.

  • Finan v. Pike County Conservation Dist.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-27
    Practice Area: Government
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Simpson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0624

    County conservation district was a local agency as opposed to a commonwealth agency for court jurisdictional purposes where it was governed by county commissioners and its authority only extended to the boundaries of the single county for which it operated, rather than having statewide authority. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.

  • Shirey v. Berks Area Reading Transp. Auth.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-20
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Leavitt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0564

    Trial court properly granted summary judgment to association and transport authority in appellant's slip and fall action because appellant's evidence did not establish a prima facie case of negligence by association and failed to allege authority's actions fell under an enumerated exception to governmental immunity under the TCA. Affirmed.

  • Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1279 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-20
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Jubelirer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0579

    The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board did not commit an error of law when it concluded that an employee's protected union activity was not proximate in time sufficient to infer anti-union animus as a motive for her termination. The appellate court affirmed a decision of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.