Recently in Property Law Category

In a First Amendment case against the city of Pittsburgh challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance establishing two types of zones limiting speech around health care facilities, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, dismissed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's facial challenge is reversed; 2) the combination of the ordinance's "buffer" and "bubble" zones is invalid but either zone, individually, is valid on its face; 3) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's claim of selective enforcement is affirmed but vacated with respect to her claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to particular clinic locations; and 4) plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order partially dismissing her complaint is dismissed. 

Read Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, No. 08-1819

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-0393)  

District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer

Opinion Filed October 30, 2009

Judges

Before:  Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Scirica, Chief Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: David A. Cortman, Joshua B. Bollinger, Benjamin W. Bull, Jeremy D. Tedesco, Lawrence G. Palladin, Jr.

Counsel for Appellee:  Yvonne S. Hilton, Michael E. Kennedy, George R. Specter. 

In plaintiffs-homebuyers' putative class action to recover statutory treble damages pursuant to section 8(d)(2) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) of 1974, district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is reversed as the plain language of RESPA section 8 indicates that Congress created a private right of action without requiring an overarching allegation.  Finally, plaintiffs are not barred by the filed rate doctrine as it simply does not apply in this case.   

Read Alston v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 08-4334

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-03508)  

District Judge: Honorable James T. Giles

Opinion Filed October 28, 2009

Judges

Before:  Barry, Fisher, and Jordan, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Barry, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Edward W. Ciolko, Joseph H. Meltzer, Donna S. Moffa, Terrence S. Ziegler, Barroway, Topaz, Kessler, Meltzer & Check; Eric G. Calhoun, Travis & Calhoun

 Counsel for Appellee:  Christine N. Kohl, Michael J. Singer, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division. 

District court's judgment, involving land title insurance policy dispute, is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in granting Commonwealth's motion to dismiss as in order to except expressly from ALTA 9 Endorsement coverage a right of refusal or other restrictions noted in paragraph 1(b)(2) of the Endorsement, an insurer must list those restrictions specifically in Schedule B: and 2) Commonwealth bore the burden of detecting the restrictions stated in the Declaration, and had to list those restrictions explicitly as exceptions to avoid covering loss from them.  

Read Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. , No. 06-2890

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-00281)
District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter

Argued January 28,  2009
Opinion Filed August 31, 2009

Judges
Before:  Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Ambro

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant.:  Justin K. Miller, C. Paul Scheuritzel.

Counsel for Appellee: Craig R. Blackman, Neal R. Troum.

In an appeal from the District Court's order finding the Government of the Virgin Islands in contempt for violating a consent decree relating the assessment of commercial real property taxes, the order is affirmed where the government failed to create a functioning Board of Tax Review that consistently held hearings and reached determinations on appeals.

Read the full decision in Berne Corp, et al. v. Government of the Virgin Islands, No. 08-3897.

Appellate Information:

On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John. Honorable Curtis V. Gomez.
D.C. Civil Action Nos. 3-00-cv-00141, 3-00-cv-00167, 3-01-cv-00151, 3-01-cv-00155, 3-01-cv-00181, 3-01-cv-00196, 3-01-cv-00197, 3-01-cv-00228, 3-02-cv-00057
Argued on January 29, 2009
Opinion filed on June 16, 2009

Judges:

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by SCIRICA, Chief Judge.

Counsel:

Attorney for Appellants - TERRYLN M. SMOCK, Esq. (ARGUED)
Office of Attorney General of Virgin Islands
Department of Justice,

Attorney for Appellees - JAMES M. DERR, Esq. (ARGUED), DAVID A. BORNN, Esq. (ARGUED) of The Bornn Firm, SORAYA D. COFFELT, Esq.