In this Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) claim out of Florida, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a municipality has standing to bring a claim under the FHA, and whether there is a sufficient causal link between predatory lending practices within minority communities and the negative effects on municipalities that result in those communities due to high foreclosure rates. The Court held that municipalities do have standing to bring FHA claims, but remanded to the lower courts to decide the issue of proximate cause.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Municipal Law (Page 3 of 9)
This decision from the Third Circuit deals with a civil rights claim filed by Township residents asserting violations of their First Amendment right to petition their government. At issue was a Township official’s statement to the residents not to communicate with Township officials or employees after the residents’ were perceived to have threatened suit against the Township for its inaction in a dispute with the residents’ neighbors. In reversing the District Court decision, the Third Circuit found that qualified immunity applied to the Township official, because “every reasonable official” in that position would not have known that such a “no contact” email was a violation of the residents’ First Amendment rights.
In this zoning enforcement dispute out of Montgomery County, the Borough of West Conshohocken sought to obtain $130,500 in penalties for an ongoing zoning violation that had accrued while the property owner’s challenged the violation notice in court. Concluding that the enforcement action was premature, the Commonwealth Court held that the Borough was not entitled to impose fines while the underlying appeal remained pending.
In this appeal of a final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the Commonwealth Court remanded a determination granting access to the home addresses of certain members of the State Employees’ Retirement System (“SERS”). The Court held that its decision in Pennsylvania State Education Association v. Office of Open Records, 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016) (“PSEA III”) was controlling, and, as PSEA III had been issued after OOR had rendered its final determination, the matter should be remanded to allow OOR to reevaluate whether dissemination was warranted.
In this case out of Luzerne County, the Commonwealth Court was presented with a claim that a municipality had violated a landlord’s constitutional rights by performing an inspection of his property without an administrative warrant, and without his consent. In finding no violation had occurred, the Court concluded that the tenant’s consent to perform the inspection satisfied the constitutional requirements and no violation had occurred.
In this breach of contract action out of Montgomery County, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether a municipality could be held vicariously liable for the actions of members of a Township Board of Supervisors. In reversing the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County’s decision, the Commonwealth Court held that, similar to a private corporation, a political subdivision can only carry out its duties through its agents, servants, and employees; including members of its governing body. As agents of the municipality, the municipality could be held vicariously liable for their actions.
In this appeal out of Lehigh County, the Commonwealth Court was presented with a challenge to the City of Allentown’s residential rental unit licensing ordinance. Objecting landlords (“Challengers”) asserted the fee constituted an unlawful special tax and sought an injunction against its enforcement. In affirming the trial court’s finding in favor of the City, the Commonwealth Court held that certain indirect costs were to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a municipal fee, and Challengers’ failure to include any indirect costs meant they had not met their burden and the case was properly dismissed.
Presented with a challenge to the City of Philadelphia’s Windows and Doors Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), the Commonwealth Court ruled that the Ordinance was an improper exercise of the City’s police power because it was purely concerned with aesthetics, rather than the safety risks posed by blight.
In this Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) appeal from the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the Commonwealth Court was asked to evaluate when a request is too vague such that an agency is not required to respond. In finding that the request at issue was too vague, the court reasoned that an overly broad request that does not identify a specific transaction or activity for which the record is being sought, provides no context to guide the agency’s record search and does not require production.
In this Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) case arising from an appeal to the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the Commonwealth Court was presented with a petition alleging that a state agency had failed to disclose all responsive records, as ordered by OOR, and a request for statutory sanctions. In denying cross motions for summary relief, the court chose to allow the matter to develop further to determine the extent of the Department of Corrections’ (“DOC”) noncompliance with the OOR final determination.
Published By:
