Methodological Provisions:

Fumo v. City of Philadelphia, 972 A.2d 487 (Pa. 2009), per Castille, C.J., holds that legislative standing is present only when there is alleged "a discernable and palpable infringement on...authority as legislators"; applying that standard, the court upholds standing to challenge city issuance of gaming license on submerged lands but not standing to challenge other aspects of city gaming license decisions; court also denies taxpayer standing.  McCaffery, J., concurs in
result in part.        

NRA v. City of Philadelphia, __ A.2d __, 2009 WL 1692390 (Pa.Cmwlth. 6/18/2009): per Leadbetter, P.J., the court holds that plaintiff gun owners lack standing to challenge three city ordinances regulating firearms in the context of imminent danger, protection from abuse and reporting lost or stolen guns; the court strikes down on preemption grounds city ordinances prohibiting possession of assault weapons and banning straw gun purchasing.

Nykiel v. Borough of Sharpsburg, 2009 WL 1549535 (W.D.Pa. 6/2/2009), Judge Lancaster holds that there is no private cause of action for money damages for violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution, citing Commonwealth Court and federal court precedent, but notes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue.

Dillon v. Homeowner's Select, Affinity Insurance Services, Inc., __ A.2d __, 2008 WL 4380866 (Pa.Super 9/29/2008): the panel, per Donohue, J., holds in a matter of first impression that the State ERA, Art. I, section 28, does not create a private cause of action for money damages against a private employer in a claim of gender-based discrimination.

Article I:

Section 7--DePaul v. Commonwealth etc. 969 A.2d 536 (Pa. 2009)- per Castille, C.J., the Court holds that Section 1513 of the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act, 4 Pa.C.S. § 1513, which imposes an absolute ban on political contributions on persons affiliated with licensed gaming in Pennsylvania, is unconstitutional under Art. I, Section 7 to the extent that it prohibits contributions of any amount. Justice McCaffery dissents.

Section 8--Commonwealth v. Basking, 970 A.2d 1181 (Pa.Super. 2009): panel, per Allen, J., adopts federal apparent authority doctrine for searches after full Edmunds analysis.

Commonwealth v Sam, 952 A.2d 565 (Pa. 2008)­the Court, per Castille, C.J., holds that Art. I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not provide a greater right for a mentally incompetent inmate to refuse antipsychotic medication for the purpose of rendering the inmate competent to participate in post-sentencing proceedings than did the parallel federal right determined by the United States Supreme Court in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). Baer, J., joined by Todd, J., dissented.

Commonwealth v. Grahame, 2008 WL 1759257 (Pa.Super. 4/18/2008)--in the course of an analysis of the federal fourth amendment, a divided panel, per Judge Klein rejects an analogous State Constitutional claim by stating that an expansion of rights under the State Constitution over applicable federal rights will only be found "where there is a compelling reason to do so", quoting Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1985); this standard appears to be in tension with the four-part analytical framework utilized in Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) and with fair consistency since then in State Supreme Court opinions.       

Section 11--Konidaris v. Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd., __ A.2d __, 2008 WL
3823878 (Pa. 8/18/2008): per Justice Baer, joined by Chief Justice Castille and Justice Saylor, with Justice Eakin dissenting in part, the Court holds that retroactive legislative authorization of attorney fees for recovery of delinquent taxes does not violate the Remedies Clause.

Section 21--District of Columbia v. Heller, __ U.S. __, 2008 2520816: Scalia, J., interpreting the federal Second Amendment as creating an individual right to bear arms for self-defense, relied in part on the wording and interpretation of section 21, originally Pa. Declaration of Rights §XIII.

Section 27--Belden & Blake Corp. v. Commonwealth, 969 A.2d 528 (Pa. 2009)--Justice Eakin holds that obligation under Art. I, section 27 as trustee of public resources does not grant to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources the authority to impose coordination agreement on owner of mineral rights inside state park; Justice Saylor, joined by Todd, J., dissented.  

Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, __ A.2d __, 2008 WL 2404314 (Pa. Cmwlth., June 16, 2008): per Simpson, P.J., denying preliminary objections to standing of plaintiffs to challenge management of State deer herd, apparently based in part on Section 27 granting legal interest to citizens in State wildlife.

Section 28-Sex Discrimination
Weaver v. Hapster, 975 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2009): Court, per Baer, holds that Section 28 does not create a common law claim under the public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine for sex discrimination by a private employer not covered by the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Act.  Justice Todd, joined Chief Justice Castille dissented.  

Article II:

Section 1. Delegation--Association of Settlement Companies v. Department of Banking, __ A.2d __. 2009 WL 2193553 (Pa.Cmwlth., July 24, 2009)--the Court, per Cohn Jubelirer J., overrules Preliminary Objections to various constitutional challenges to the Debt Management Services Act; the case will proceed; Smith-Ribner, J., dissent on ripeness grounds.       

Section 7--Commonwealth ex rel. Pennsylvania Attorney General Corbett v.
Griffin, 946 A.2d 668 (Pa. 2008): the Court, per Saylor, J., holds that all felonies qualify as "infamous crimes" for purposes of removal from office in a quo warranto proceeding, that this section applies to judges, including conduct that occurred prior to the beginning of the judge's term of office; all these holdings are in the nature of reaffirmations of prior caselaw, but Justice Saylor's opinion reconsiders these issues.    

Article III:

Section 1--Marcavage v. Rendell, 936 A.2d 188, (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007): the panel, per Colins, J., with Cohn Jubelierer and Leavitt, J.J., not participating and Leadbetter, P.J. dissenting, strikes down an amendment to the Ethnic Intimidation Statute, 18 Pa.C.S. §2710, on the ground that the Act amending the section changed its original purpose during the course of legislation, in violation of Art. III, section 1.  

On July 23, 2008, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by Per Curiam order affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court in Marcavage v. Rendell, 936 A.2d 188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) and adopted the opinion by Judge Colins in that case as the opinion of the Supreme Court.  The Commonwealth Court had held that the amendment of the ethnic intimidation statute violated the State Constitutional prohibition against changing the original purpose of a bill.    

Single Subject--
Section 3--See Spahn v. Zoning Board of Adjustment at Art. IX, Section 2.  

Article IV:

Section 16--Jubelirer v. Rendell, __ A.2d __ (Pa. 8/19/2008), per Castille, C.J., seems to confirm that the Edmunds four-factor analysis will only be used in State constitutional analysis of provisions parallel to those found in the United States Constitution.  On the merits of the case the Court held that Art. IV, section 16 does not permit the Governor to veto language defining a specific appropriation unless the Governor vetoes the funding itself.  [Thanks to Donald Marritz for the heads up.]  Some of the language concerning Edmunds follows:

"[W]e have been precise in ex plaining that it is when a matter calls for this kind of comparative constitutional analysis that  we turn to the four Edmunds factors for guidance.....In contrast, this Court is sometimes presented with cases requiring us to interpret a provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution that lacks a counterpart in the U.S. Constitution. In such cases, because there is no federal constitutional text or federal caselaw to consider, we have not engaged in the four-factor analysis set forth in Edmunds."

Article V:

Separation of powers--

Section 1--Hess v. County of Lehigh, 2009 WL 2461734 (E.D.Pa., 8/10/2009): Golden, J., dismisses federal due process claim by County Probation Officer despite, in part because collective bargaining agreements with employees of Pennsylvania courts do not grant property interests because they are not enforceable under the separation of powers; the discharge of a judicial employee is an inherent judicial power under Pennsylvania law.

Washington County v. Washington Court Association of Professional Employees, AFL-CIO, 948 A2d 271 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008): the panel per Smith-Ribner, with Kelly, J., dissenting, holds that arbitration award increasing the paid work hours for probation officers is valid and does not implicate the ability of the court below to carry out its constitutional functions.  

Section 10--Commonwealth v. McMullen, __ A.2d __, 2008 WL 5250940 (Pa. Dec. 18,
2008): the court, per Justice Eakin held that 42 PaC.S. Sections 4136(a) (granting a right to a jury trial for indirect contempt for alleged violation of a restraining order or injunction) is unconstitutional as an infringement of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's exclusive authority to prescribe rules of procedure; the Court also held that Section 4136(b), which limited the punishment for indirect contempt to 15 days in jail, was unconstitutional as an infringement of the inherent authority of the courts of Pennsylvania.  Justice Saylor dissented in part.

Section 13(b)--Otter v. Cortés, 969 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009), the panel per Leavitt, S.J., applies the ten month rule for judicial vacancies strictly and refuses to follow the single judge opinion in Brady v. Cortes (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005, affirmed per curiam (2005) that had allowed some vacancies to be filled even though they less than ten months before
the next municipal election.          

Article VIII

Section 1--Clifton v. Allegheny County, 969 A.2d 1197 (Pa.2009): per Castille, C.J., the Court holds that the current base year property assessment system in Allegheny County is unconstitutional as a violation of the tax uniformity clause, Art. VIII, Section 1. Justice Baer concurs.

See also Clifton v. Allegheny County, 980 A.2d 27 (Pa. 2009): order denying County's Application for Relief and for Stay of Remand; Justice Baer dissented.  The effect of the order was to remand the case to the trial court for implementation of an assessment plan.

Article IX

Home Rule--

Section 2--Voter Referendum Petition Filed August 5, 2008, 2009 WL 3150413 (Pa.
10/1/2009): a unanimous court per Baer, J., holds that two drink tax referenda were properly denied ballot placement by the Board of Elections of Allegheny County. 

Powers of Local Government--

Section 2--Spahn v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 977 A.2d 1132 (Pa. 8/18/2009)--Court, per Castille, P.J., upholds State legislature's amendment of the First Class City Home Rule Act  limiting standing in zoning appeals to remove taxpayer standing that had been granted by Philadelphia's Zoning Ordinance; the court held that access to the courts is not a an issue of purely local concern, but a matter of statewide concern, that the amendment did not violate the single.