Case Name: Anthony M. RUFO and TR Getz, LP v. BOARD OF LICENSE AND INSPECTION REVIEW and City of Philadelphia. Petition of: the City of Philadelphia
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2017-07-06
Citations: 169 A.3d 1035
Docket Number: No. 126 EAL 2017
Parties: Anthony M. RUFO and TR Getz, LP v. BOARD OF LICENSE AND INSPECTION REVIEW and City of Philadelphia Petition of: the City of Philadelphia
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 169
Pages: 1035–1036

Head Matter:
Anthony M. RUFO and TR Getz, LP v. BOARD OF LICENSE AND INSPECTION REVIEW and City of Philadelphia Petition of: the City of Philadelphia
No. 126 EAL 2017
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
July 6, 2017

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2017, the Petition for Alowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
a. Did the Commonwealth Court rewrite decades of caselaw in expressly placing the burden on the municipality to produce evidence of the rational basis for a land use Ordinance, rather than placing the burden of proof where it belongs, on the party challenging the Ordinance?
b. Did the Commonwealth Court, in invalidating an anti-blight, property maintenance Ordinance on the ground that aesthetics cannot form the basis for land use legislation, improperly undermine the ability of municipal government to combat urban blight and improperly substitute its own views for those of the legislature as to the efficacy of municipal legislation?