Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In an appeal by allowance, the issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was, inter alia, the scope of the authority of the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) to issue administrative orders under the Bituminous Coal Mine Safety Act. The Court found that the DEP acted within its authority with respect to the orders it issued regarding certain failures to report accidents, but that it improperly issued other orders with respect to requiring fire extinguishers on certain mining vehicles. Thus, the Court reversed in part, and affirmed in part, the order of the Commonwealth Court. The case was thereafter remanded for further proceedings.View "DEP, Aplt. v. Emerald Coal Resources, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant Friends of Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School appealed an order of the Commonwealth Court which held that the retroactive real estate tax exemption provided in Section 1722-A(e)(3) of the Public School Code, 24 P.S. 17-1722-A(e)(3), was unconstitutional. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed (though by different reasoning), concluding that retroactive application of the real estate tax exemption of Section 1722-A(e)(3) was unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it violated the separation of powers doctrine.View "Friends of PaLCS v. Chester Cty Bd of Assess" on Justia Law

In 2009, the Newtown Township Board of Supervisors enacted a Planned Residential Development Ordinance. This appeal centered on challenges to the validity of that ordinance and to the approval of a Tentative PRD Plan pursuant to it. Intervenors BPG Real Estate Investors (BPG) submitted an application under the anticipated PRD Ordinance for approval of a Tentative PRD Plan, proposing multi-use development of an approximately 218-acre tract of land that it owned. The Township Board orally approved BPG's Tentative PRD Plan, and later issued a written decision granting approval. Newtown Square East, L.P. (NSE), which owned a two-acre tract of land adjacent to BPG's tract, filed a challenge to the validity of the PRD Ordinance with the Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board, and filed an appeal of the Township Board's approval of BPG's Tentative PRD Plan with the court of common pleas. With regard to its validity challenge before the Zoning Board, NSE argued, inter alia, that the PRD Ordinance violated Article VII of the MPC by, allegedly, failing to require that a tentative plan identify the uses of buildings and other structures, and permitting the location of buildings to be subject to free modification between the time of tentative plan approval and final plan approval. Following several hearings, the Zoning Board upheld the validity of the PRD Ordinance, finding that its minor textual variations from the relevant provisions of the MPC, Article VII, did not create an inconsistency or conflict with the enabling legislation. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the ordinance. View "Newtown Square East v. Twp. of Newtown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted review in this case principally to clarify the standard for determining whether a municipal ordinance applied to an agency or instrumentality of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Court concluded here that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) was not subject to either the provisions of the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance (FPO), or the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations. The Commonwealth Court also concluded that, because SEPTA was not subject to the Philadelphia Commission’s jurisdiction, it had no duty to exhaust its administrative remedies before that agency. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the Commonwealth Court order and remanded for reconsideration under the proper standard. View "SEPTA v. City of Phila., et al" on Justia Law

The primary question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether a municipal authority could exercise its eminent domain powers to condemn an easement over privately-owned land, where the sole purpose of the easement is to supply a private developer with land to install sewer drainage facilities needed for a proposed private residential subdivision. "While this determination may seem to interfere with the ability of municipal water and/or sewer authorities to expand their operations under circumstances where, as here, there is an overarching nexus between the taking and private development, it is not this Court’s function to ameliorate such difficulties by departing from the statutory text. [. . .] The Legislature’s decision to exempt regulated public utilities, but not municipal authorities, from the preclusive rule set forth in Section 204(a) demonstrates that it intended to allow – within constitutional limitations – the continued use of eminent domain for the provision of public services such as water and sewer access in tandem with private development for a limited, defined class of condemnors. As RAWA is not within that class, its condemnation of the drainage easement is in violation of PRPA." View "Reading Area Wat Auth v. Schuyl River Grwy, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Michael Galardi appealed the trial court's order denying his special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute in a malicious prosecution action brought against him by Michael Zucchet. Galardi owned several strip clubs in Las Vegas and one in San Diego. In 2000, the San Diego City Council enacted a "no-touch" ordinance, which banned touching between exotic dancers and patrons in strip clubs. Galardi hired Lance Malone as a lobbyist to try to obtain repeal of the ordinance. Malone's lobbying activities included meeting with and making campaign contributions to members of the San Diego City Council, including Zucchet, who was elected to the city council in November 2002. In 2001, Malone made campaign contributions to city council member Ralph Inzunza, and Malone and Inzunza discussed a strategy to repeal the ordinance. Inzunza and Malone arranged to have an ostensibly corrupt police officer (who turned out to be an FBI informant) express public support for the plan. Inzunza advised Malone to contribute to Zucchet's campaign. Malone attempted to make a $6,750 contribution to Zucchet's campaign in 2001, but Zucchet returned the money because it was a political liability to be associated with Galardi's adult entertainment business. In 2002, Malone donated approximately $5,000 to Zucchet's campaign in checks that were not traceable to Galardi through one of Galardi's employees (and who also turned out to be an FBI informant). In 2003, the government executed a series of search warrants, raiding city hall. A federal grand jury indictment was filed, naming Inzunza, Zucchet, Galardi, Malone and others as defendants in numerous counts of fraud and other crimes, all arising from the scheme to repeal the no-touch ordinance. Galardi agreed to enter a guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and agreed to cooperate with the government's prosecution of the other defendants. After an approximate 11-week trial, the jury acquitted Zucchet of 28 of the 37 counts against him. Zucchet filed this lawsuit against Galardi in October 2012, asserting a single cause of action for malicious prosecution. Zucchet alleged that: (1) Galardi falsely told the United States Attorney's Office that he had given $10,000 in cash to Malone to bribe three city council members, including Zucchet; and (2) Galardi falsely testified to that cash bribery during the criminal trial against Zucchet. Galardi filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the complaint arose from activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute because it arose from statements he made during Zucchet's trial and to the United States Attorney's Office in preparation for that trial. The trial court granted the special motion to strike, concluding that Galardi had not rebutted the allegation that his conduct was illegal and therefore not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court also concluded that Zucchet had established a probability of prevailing on his malicious prosecution claim. As permitted by the anti-SLAPP statute, Galardi filed a notice of appeal of the order denying his special motion to strike. After review of the matter, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred in denying the special motion to strike, reversed and remanded for further proceedings.View "Zucchet v. Galardi" on Justia Law

This case centered on the interpretation of a state tax deduction statute. Former RCW 82.04.4292 (1980) provided that in computing their business and occupation (B&O) tax, banks and financial institutions could deduct from their income "amounts derived from interest received on investments or loans primarily secured by first mortgages or trust deeds on nontransient residential properties." Between 2004 and 2007, petitioner Cashmere Valley Bank invested in mortgage-backed securities known as real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs) and collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs). Cashmere claimed that interest earned on these investments was deductible under RCW 82.04.4292. Upon further review, the Supreme Court concluded Cashmere could not claim the deduction because its investments in REMICs and CMOs were not "primarily secured" by first mortgages or trust deeds. The ultimate source of cash flow was mortgage payments. However, Cashmere's investments were not backed by any encumbrance on property nor did Cashmere have any legal recourse to the underlying trust assets in the event of default. Thus, Cashmere's investments were not "primarily secured" by mortgages or trust deeds. View "Cashmere Valley Bank v. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the County and others, claiming that the County secretly uses public funds to enter into Social Program Agreements (SPAs) with social service providers in violation of the Brown Act, Gov. Code 54950 et seq., a statutory scheme which imposes open meeting requirements on legislative bodies. The court concluded that the four SPA signatories are not a legislative body and do not engage in collective decisionmaking within the meaning of the Brown Act; there was no merit to plaintiff's claim that the Board improperly delegated its authority to enter into SPAs; there was no merit to plaintiff's cause of action for waste and related arguments; plaintiff's contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for catalyst attorney fees was not properly before the court; and because the postjudgment order was not appealed, it is final and no longer reviewable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.View "Golightly v. Molina" on Justia Law

Anita Cooper, who was employed as principal of the Oark, Arkansas schools, was removed from her duties as principal. The Superintendent of the Jasper School District No. 1 of Newton County listed nine reasons as bases for the termination. The District’s Board of Directors then terminated Cooper’s employment. The circuit court reversed the Board’s decision, reinstated Cooper to her position, and awarded Cooper $64,998 in damages. The Superintendent and District appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in finding that Defendants failed to comply with the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act; (2) the circuit court did not err in concluding that the contract in the case at bar created a property right in Cooper’s position as principal of the Oark schools; and (3) the circuit court’s award to Cooper was neither excessive nor amounted to an award of “double retirement.” View "Jasper Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Appellant, an employee of a Harley Davidson service center (Employer), was discharged after working more than five years with Employer. Appellant filed for unemployment benefits. After a hearing, the hearing officer determined that Appellant was not discharged for misconduct connected with his work. The Unemployment Insurance Commission reversed the hearing officer and denied Appellant unemployment compensation benefits, ruling that Appellant was terminated for misconduct. The district court affirmed the Commission. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the decision of the Commission was unsupported by the record. Remanded with direction that benefits should be restored to Appellant.View "Doggett v. Wyo. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Unemployment Ins. Comm’n" on Justia Law