Statutory Interpretation Cases
Show: 1 day 1 week 1 month All
Custom (decided): –
Sort: Newest first A–Z
Coverage since June 9, 2026

Statutory Interpretation

New YorkCivil ProcedureEnvironmental LawPersonal Injury & Tort
Appellate Division, Second Department
Uncategorized

Klaus v. Town of Brookhaven — CERCLA’s Discovery Rule Preempts NY’s CPLR 214-c in Landfill Toxic Tort Cases

/

The Appellate Division, Second Department holds that 42 U.S.C. § 9658 — CERCLA’s federal discovery rule for toxic tort statutes of limitations — applies to all state-law toxic tort actions involving hazardous substance exposure, even where no CERCLA liability exists. CPLR 214-c’s accrual date is displaced by the federally required commencement date in Brookhaven Landfill cancer-cluster litigation.

PennsylvaniaMunicipal LawNonprofit LawStatutory Interpretation
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Uncategorized

Overbrook Golf Club v. Radnor Township — Nonprofit Member-Owned Clubs Are Not Businesses Subject to the Local Business Privilege Tax

/

The Commonwealth Court held that nonprofit, member-owned golf clubs are not “businesses” subject to a local business privilege tax on membership dues and assessments, because the clubs do not operate for profit and their members do not receive commercially taxable “services” — rejecting Radnor Township’s reliance on Fish v. Township of Lower Merion.

PennsylvaniaAdministrative LawReal EstateStatutory Interpretation
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Uncategorized

Dieffenbach v. Rose Tree Media SD — RETSL Exceptions Cannot Challenge Constitutionality of the Tax Itself

/

The Commonwealth Court held that Pennsylvania’s Real Estate Tax Sale Law exceptions procedure does not permit constitutional challenges to the validity of a tax levy, affirming dismissal of a pro se taxpayer’s Uniformity Clause attack on Delaware County school taxes as beyond the scope of the RETSL exceptions process.

PennsylvaniaAdministrative LawRight-to-Know LawStatutory Interpretation
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Uncategorized

Noto v. Luzerne County — Right-to-Know Law Permits Market-Value Fees for Complex County Data Sets

/

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, sitting en banc, upheld Luzerne County’s $10,100 fee for bulk CAMA property assessment data, holding that Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law permits market-value-based fees for complex data sets — not merely the cost of duplication — and that coordinating pricing information across counties does not constitute bad faith.

Scroll to Top