Stephen A. Zappala

This case concerned whether Fayette County, Pennsylvania, could lawfully impose real estate (ad valorem) taxes on private parties' leasehold interests in oil and gas. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that no such taxation is authorized under state law and reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision upholding the assessments. The court reasoned that the power to tax is strictly statutory and must be expressly granted by the General Assembly; review of the Oil and Gas Act and the General County Assessment Law revealed no provision listing oil and gas interests among the subjects of real-estate taxation. Earlier procedural disputes over exhaustion of administrative remedies and subject-matter jurisdiction were resolved in the taxpayers' favor, but the dispositive issue remained the absence of statutory authority.

taxesproperty

The case involved appellant Jody Lee Hess's conviction for driving under the influence based on a blood alcohol content of .241 percent following a traffic stop at a DUI checkpoint. After his post-trial motion was denied by operation of law, Hess filed a notice of appeal, but the trial court issued an order directing him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal, which he never received or filed. The Superior Court affirmed the conviction, finding all claims waived under Commonwealth v. Lord due to noncompliance with the 1925(b) order. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that waiver does not apply where the appellant was not served with the order and the clerk of courts failed to note service on the docket as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 114, so the strict waiver rule could not be invoked without proper notice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a certified nurse's aide fired from a nursing home after admitting to daily off-duty marijuana use and illegal prescription medication use, with no evidence linking the conduct to impaired work performance. She was denied unemployment benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law for willful misconduct, a decision affirmed by the Commonwealth Court on grounds that the admissions created legitimate employer safety concerns and alternatively under section 3 for conduct inconsistent with acceptable standards. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, ruling that off-duty misconduct does not qualify as willful misconduct under section 402(e) absent a connection to job performance and that the section 3 theory was waived because it was not raised before the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. The court remanded the matter solely for computation of benefits.

labor & employment

The case concerned a challenge by the City of Philadelphia to Act 22, which transferred appointment and removal authority over the Philadelphia Parking Authority board from the Mayor to the Governor. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed whether the Commonwealth Court had original jurisdiction over the City's action for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court vacated the Commonwealth Court's order and remanded for a decision on the merits, concluding that the Parking Authority is part of the Commonwealth government and that the Governor is an indispensable party because the litigation directly implicates his statutory appointment powers under the Act. This determination established exclusive original jurisdiction in the Commonwealth Court under the Judicial Code.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Commonwealth v. Shaw, the defendant was involved in a car accident and taken to a hospital where blood was drawn for medical purposes; police later obtained the blood alcohol content results without a warrant or formally requesting the test under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3755. The case addressed whether this practice violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution in a prosecution for driving under the influence. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the warrantless acquisition of the results was unconstitutional under the state charter, even though it had been upheld under the Fourth Amendment in prior precedent. The court reasoned that Pennsylvania's constitutional protections require police either to request the test pursuant to the statute or to obtain a warrant, as the state provision provides broader privacy safeguards for medical information than federal law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved parents filing a medical malpractice lawsuit on behalf of their minor daughter for injuries sustained at birth, followed by repeated failures to file a complaint and attempts to discontinue the action without prejudice. The trial court denied the discontinuance petition and entered a judgment of non pros after missed deadlines, which the Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by not permitting the discontinuance without prejudice. The core reasoning was that Pennsylvania's minority tolling statute suspends the statute of limitations for minors until age 18, so the possibility of refiling within that period does not constitute unreasonable prejudice to defendants under Pa.R.C.P. 229(c).

proceduretorts & liability