Contact Person:

Brook Duer Staff Attorney

Phone:

Email:

dhd5103@psu.edu

Case Law

The following resources represent a collection of court filings and judicial opinions regarding ACRE/Pennsylvania Act 38. Furthermore, the decisions may be viewed via an online legal database using the mentioned docket number.

This list of cases is not exhaustive.

E. Penn Township v. Synagro Central, LLC
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 707 C.D. 2020

  • Opinion (Oct. 7, 2020) (denied the Township’s motion to dismiss appeal) 

Green ‘N Grow Composting, LLC v. Martic Twp.
Common Pleas Court of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, No. CI-17-08939

  • Opinion (Jun. 19, 2018) (affirmed the Board’s ruling, “which upheld an enforcement notice finding that Appellants violated the zoning ordinance in failing to obtain the necessary permits to erect new structures and to compost commercial residual waste in the agricultural district of Martic Township.”)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1002 C.D. 2018

  • Opinion (May 3, 2019) (affirmed the trial court’s decision)

Commonwealth v. Locust Township
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 358 M.D. 2006

The Attorney General brought an action against Locust Township, Columbia County, on June 29, 2006. The Attorney General challenged the validity of a township ordinance that regulated “Intensive Animal Agriculture,” arguing that it was violative of ACRE.

  • Opinion (Jul. 17, 2012) (the Pa. Commonwealth Court granted the AG partial summary judgment on two ordinance challenges: 1) finding that small farmers, currently exempt under state law, were improperly required to submit and implement emergency and response nutrient management plans, and 2) local water requirements were in excess of state law. The court denied summary judgment as to the remaining claims and counts)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Nos. 14 MAP 2007, 22 MAP 2007

  • Majority Opinion (Apr. 29, 2009) (finding AG may challenge township ordinances that pre-existed ACRE, regardless of whether the township attempts to enforce the ordinances)

Concurring and dissenting opinion (Apr. 29, 2009)

Commonwealth v. Packer Township
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 432 M.D. 2009

The Attorney General brought an action against Packer Township, Carbon County, on August 18, 2009. The Attorney General challenged the validity of a township ordinance that regulated “biosolid land application” and prohibited “biosolid land application by corporations,” arguing that it was violative of ACRE.

  • Opinion (Jul. 12, 2012) (the Pa. Commonwealth Court denied on all counts the Township’s motion for summary judgment assertion that 1) ACRE was unconstitutional and violated the rights of local residents to self-government; 2) the Attorney General was prevented from bringing an action because the challenge to the local ordinance did not affect an affected complainant; 3) the Township’s ordinance ban on corporate sludging and community bill of rights should be removed from the Attorney General’s challenge)

Boswell v. Skippack Township
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 389 M.D. 2006

A private party action was asserted against Skippack Township, Montgomery County, on July 14, 2006. The owner challenged a township ordinance that was applied to prohibit the use of a propane cannon to repel deer.

Memorandum Opinion (Jun. 27, 2012) (the Pa. Commonwealth Court denied post-trial motions and upheld ruling that township ordinance preventing use of sound device, designed to protect tree farm from deer damage, did not violate ACRE).

Commonwealth v. Richmond Township
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 360 M.D. 2006

The Attorney General brought an action against Richmond Township, Berks County, on June 29, 2006. The Attorney General challenged the validity of a township ordinance that regulated “intensive agricultural activity,” arguing that it was violative of ACRE.

  • Memorandum Opinion (May 28, 2010) (the Pa. Commonwealth Court granted the AG’s motion for summary judgment; ruled that Richmond Township is enjoined from enforcing the provisions of the Township Zoning Ordinance relating to intensive agriculture)

Commonwealth v. Heidelberg Township
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, No. 136 MAP 2006

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 357 M.D. 2006

The Attorney General brought an action against the Townships of Heidelberg, North Heidelberg, and the boroughs of Robesonia and Womelsdorf in Bucks County on June 29, 2006. The lawsuit challenged the validity of a joint ordinance regulating “intensive raising of livestock and poultry,” arguing that it was violative of ACRE.

  • Memorandum Opinion (Dec. 12, 2006) (the Pa. Commonwealth Court held that the AG cannot challenge a local ordinance that preexisted ACRE unless petitioner alleges that the township attempted to apply or enforce the ordinance) Note: this case was vacated based on the ruling in Commonwealth v. Locust Township (Apr. 29, 2009)

Commonwealth v. Lower Oxford Township
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 137 MAP 2006

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 359 M.D. 2006

  • Opinion (Dec. 12, 2006) (the Pa. Commonwealth Court found Municipalities Planning Code and Agricultural Code do not conflict; challenge to ordinance unauthorized unless petitioner alleges that the township attempted to apply or enforce the ordinance) Note: this case was vacated based on the ruling in Commonwealth v. Locust Township (Apr. 29, 2009)