explaining the precedential aspects of our prior decision in Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 623 Pa. 564, 83 A.3d 901 (2013), which produced, in part, a majority holding but not a majority opinion
How later courts described this case
- explaining the precedential aspects of our prior decision in Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 623 Pa. 564, 83 A.3d 901 (2013), which produced, in part, a majority holding but not a majority opinion
- “[B]efore our Court, Citizens did not preserve a discrete claim based on Section 204(a) [of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa. C.S. §204(a
- "Given the absence of those statutory provisions, municipalities may again, as they did prior to the passage of Act 13, regulate the environmental impact, setback distances, and the siting of oil and gas wells in land use districts through local ordinances."
- “Although courts should interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional questions when possible, they cannot ignore the plain meaning of a statute to do so.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE BAER,
concurring and dissenting
I join the third paragraph of Chief Justice Saylor’s concurring and dissenting opinion, concluding that Section 3218.1 of Act 13, 58 Pa.C.S. § 3218.1 (requiring the Department of Environmental Protection to notify any public drinking water facility of a spill), does not constitute a special law in violation of Article III, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
In all other respects, I concur in the result of the Majority Opinion.