Northside Urban Pathways Charter School v. Pittsburgh Public SD (complete opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Northside Urban Pathways Charter School, Appellant v. Pittsburgh Public School District BEFORE: : : : : : : : : No. 2506 C.D. 2010 Argued: June 6, 2012 HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: October 26, 2012 Northside Urban Pathways Charter School (Northside) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, Northside s appeal from a decision of the Pittsburgh Public School District (School District) that denied Northside s request to amend its charter. In a companion case decided today, we hold that the State Charter School Appeal Board has jurisdiction over this matter. Northside Urban Pathways Charter School v. State Charter School Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Public School District) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1225 C.D. 2010, filed October 26, 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s order in this case. We further grant Northside s motion to strike the appendix to the School District s brief and deny the School District s application for leave to supplement the record. ______________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge Judge Simpson concurs in the result only. 2 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Northside Urban Pathways Charter School, Appellant v. Pittsburgh Public School District : : : : : : : : No. 2506 C.D. 2010 ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of October, 2012, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the above-captioned matter, dated October 29, 2010, is AFFIRMED. Northside Urban Pathways Charter School s motion to strike the appendix to the Pittsburgh Public School District s brief is GRANTED; the School District s application for leave to supplement the record is DENIED. ______________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Northside Urban Pathways Charter School, Appellant v. Pittsburgh Public School District BEFORE: : : : : : No. 2506 C.D. 2010 : Argued: June 6, 2012 : : HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED CONCURRING OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: October 26, 2012 I concur in the majority s affirmance1 of the trial court s order dismissing Northside Urban Pathways Charter School s (Northside) appeal because 1 This Court may affirm the decision of the trial court on any basis without regard to the basis upon which the trial court relied. Shearer v. Naftzinger, 560 Pa. 634, 638, 747 A.2d 859, 861 (2000). the Charter School Law (CSL)2 does not authorize Northside to amend its charter to create another separate charter school at another location without first submitting a charter application to the Pittsburgh Public School District (District), and because the CSL does not empower the District to permit Northside to operate its charter school at more than one location or physical facility. See Northside Urban Pathways Charter School v. State Charter School Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Public School District), ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1225 C.D. 2010, filed October 26, 2012) (Dissenting Opinion by Pellegrini, P.J.). _____________________________________ DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge 2 Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, added by the Act of June 19, 1997, P.L. 225, as amended, 24 P.S. §§17-1701-A 17-1751-A. The CSL is part of the Public School Code of 1949 (School Code), Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. §§1-101 27-2702. DRP - 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.