Pennsylvania Case Law

Summary of July 17, 1956 Superior Court of PA case of significance to the enforcement of restrictive covenants.

This case raises issues under the Open Space Lands Act, 32 P.S. §§ 5001-5013 (“Act”). The Act is intended to “clarify and broaden the existing methods by which the Commonwealth and its local government units may preserve land in or acquire land for open space uses.” Act § 1, 32 P.S. § 5001. In 2006, pursuant to the Act, the citizens of Upper Pottsgrove Township voted by public referendum to impose upon themselves a new earned income tax to raise revenue for the acquisition and preservation of open-space land. In 2008, using funds from the account established for the revenues from the open-space tax, including funds borrowed by the Township on a pledge of its open-space tax revenues, the Township purchased the Smola Farm and designated the land to be preserved as open space.

Subsequently, the Township Commissioners determined that the Township needed a new municipal building complex and identified the Smola Farm as its location. In this suit by two residents and taxpayers of the Township, the Court concluded that the Township’s construction plans would violate its statutory obligation to use open-space tax revenues solely for the acquisition and preservation of open-space lands and related uses. The Court therefore enjoined the Township from proceeding with the planned construction. The Township and its Commissioners appealed to the Commonwealth Court, prompting this Opinion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a portion of Act 13, the controversial 2012 update of the state's oil and gas law, finding that the law violated Article I Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (the Environmental Rights Amendment). The majority opinion states: "To describe this case simply as a zoning or agency discretion matter would not capture the essence of the parties’ fundamental dispute regarding Act 13. Rather, at its core, this dispute centers upon an asserted vindication of citizens’ rights to quality of life on their properties and in their hometowns, insofar as Act 13 threatens degradation of air and water, and of natural, scenic, and esthetic values of the environment, with attendant effects on health, safety, and the owners’ continued enjoyment of their private property."

This website provides information on proposed legislation, state statutes, and land use case law rulings.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2017 that Pennsylvania’s Environmental Rights Amendment is a self-effectuating provision of the Constitution that must be adhered to by all levels of government. The court also held that the ERA creates an automatic right for individuals to seek enforcement against governmental action that harms the environment. This report suggests the four biggest takeaways from the recent decision and poses some questions left unanswered by the court.