Philadelphia, PA
Election campaigns and political law Lawyer at Philadelphia, PA
Practice Areas: Election Campaigns & Political Law, State, Local And Municipal Law ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Zoning Variance Denied - Porn Theater cannot double in size
http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-12/news/28683963_1_zoning-variance-forum-zba I represented 10 members of City Council, one state representative and a neighborhood civic group, who filed an amicus ... brief supporting the Center City Residents zoning appeal against the Forum Theater.
OUTCOME: Supreme Court turned down cell phone company's appeal, leaving stand Commonwealth Court decision holding cell tower was illegal and must be removed
NORTH OF WASHINGTON AVENUE COALITION, ANN HOSKINS BROWN, GREG BROWN AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, NEXTEL COMMUN ... ICATION OF THE MID ATLANTIC, INC. AND NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PETITION OF: NEXTEL COMMUNICATION OF THE MID-ATLANTIC, INC. AND NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. I represented a community group fighting against an illegal cell tower. After the Zoning Board granted a variance to a cell phone company to add more antennas to the tower, we appealed and won victories before all three courts: Common Pleas, Commonwealth Court and Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to hear appeal from Commonwealth Court, which meant that the Commonwealth Court opinion docketed at 839 A.2d 486 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003), was upheld. All three courts reversed the Zoning Board of Adjustment and found that a cell tower placed on the end of a series of row houses was illegal and must be removed.
OUTCOME: The Commonwealth Court upheld our client's right to unemployment compensation
GENERAL BUILDING SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. 591 A.2d 774 Claimant was employed by GBS as a gener ... al cleaner from August 15, 1988 to February 23, 1990. On February 23, 1990, Claimant was involved in a non work-related automobile accident in which he sustained back, neck, shoulder and knee injuries. Claimant's Employer was aware of Claimant's accident and approved sick leave from February 26, 1990 through March 30, 1990. By letter dated March 30, 1990, the Employer notified Claimant that his sick leave was being converted to disability leave without pay, and Claimant's position as a general cleaner was no longer being held open for Claimant. The letter also indicated that pursuant to the Employee Guide, Claimant was required to call the office every day until he returned to work. Additionally, upon returning to work, Claimant was to present to the personnel office a physician's note stating that Claimant could return to his full and normal range of duties that the job required without any restrictions. Pursuant to the requirements in the Employer's March 30, 1990 letter, Claimant called the Employer every day to notify GBS of his continued disability. On May 15, 1990, Claimant telephoned the Employer to inform GBS that his physician was now allowing him to return to work, but with the limitations that he not perform any heavy lifting or bending. During that same conversation, the Employer informed Claimant that work was not currently available for him with his restrictions, but would possibly be available in the future. Thereafter, the Employer received a note from Claimant's physician dated May 15, 1990, indicating that Claimant could return to work as of May 26, 1990, but was restricted from heavy lifting or bending. The Commonwealth Court held "The Board concluded that although Claimant was available for work with some limitations, the Employer did not offer Claimant suitable work within those limitations, thereby necessitating Claimant's voluntary termination. Because findings of fact made by the Board are binding on appeal as long as the record contains substantial evidence in support of those findings, we hold that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and, therefore, are binding on this court. Norman Ashton Klinger & Associates v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 127 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 293, 561 A.2d 841 (1989). Because Claimant's voluntary termination of employment was for a necessitous and compelling cause, we conclude that the Board's award of unemployment compensation benefits was sound."
OUTCOME: Plaintiff's motion for interim benefits is GRANTED. Interim benefits, in the amount plaintiff would receive if found eligible for the benefits she is claiming
709 F.Supp. 634 (E.D.Pa. 1989) Marjorie DAVENPORT v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Federal Court ruled: "The humane purposes of the benefits program and the unfairn ... ess of placing the burden of delay on the party least able to control or afford it support interim relief in these circumstances. Plaintiff's claim that the multiple bureaucratic delays in this case have forced her to live on public assistance pending resolution of these proceedings is uncontested. In addition, defendant admits that its handling of plaintiff's file was the sole cause of the delay to the court and claimant. I will therefore grant plaintiff's motion for interim benefits commencing from the last court-approved deadline for the filing of defendant's answer on January 22, 1989 to the date that the defendant filed his answer on March 6, 1989. See Gomaz v. Heckler, 591 F.Supp. 1122, 1127 (E.D.Wis.1984) (granting benefits for the two months before Secretary had filed her tardy answer in order "to effect a retroactive preservation of the status quo for those weeks when the progress of this litigation was stymied.")"
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
