green
Positive treatment
36.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Appeal of Federation Housing, Inc. ~ Appeal of: Federation Housing, Inc.
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rockland Collision Center, Inc. v. PennDOT, BMV
In evaluating whether the trial court committed an error of law, “our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Gorsline v. Bd. of 3 We have reframed Inspection Station’s issues on appeal to comport with our standard of review. 8 Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Appeal of M. Dingfield & L. Dingfield ~ Appeal of: M. Dingfield & L. Dingfield
To determine whether the ZBA committed an error of law, “our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” See Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Appeal of: East Mount Airy Neighbors & S. Oh ~ From a Decision of: ZBA
On questions of law, “our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018). 12 (.b) The variance, whether use or dimensional, if authorized will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the use or dimensional regulation in issue; (.c) The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the purpose and spirit of this Zoning Code; (.d) The grant of the variance will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets, incre…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Heinzee, LLC v. ZHB of the Twp. of Pocono v. Pocono Twp. & S. Saslow
Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Century III Mall PA., LLC v. West Mifflin Borough
To determine whether a local agency committed an error of law, “our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Steel City Billboards, LLC v. Council of Borough of W. Mifflin
For questions of law, such as whether a proposed use falls within a specific category of a zoning ordinance, “our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Appeal of J. Berkman ~ From Decision of City of Philadelphia ZBA ~ Appeal of: Ganos, LLC
On questions of law, “our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Gorsline v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfield Township, 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018). 10 below, in the case of use variances, or the criteria set forth in §14-303(8)(e)(.3) (Dimensional Variances) below, in the case of dimensional variances, have been satisfied; (.b) The variance, whether use or dimensional, if authorized will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the use or dimensional regulation in issue; (.c) The grant of th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allegheny County Dept. of Health v. A.L. Wilkerson & SCSC
In evaluating whether the Commission committed an error of law, “our standard of 7 review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” See Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
M.B. Hamilton and A.J. Hamilton v. Lower Merion Twp. ZHB
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018). 5 A. Timeliness of Appeal Section 914.1 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC)6 provides, in relevant part: (a) No person shall be allowed to file any proceeding with the board later than 30 days after an application for development, preliminary or final, has been approved by an appropriate municipal officer, agency or body if such proceeding is designed to secure reversal or t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
M.J. Hacker & P. Hacker v. ZHB of the Borough of N. Catasauqua
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
S. Notaro & V. Fayock v. Hazleton City ZHB
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept 5 as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D. Weston v. Hanover Twp. ZHB v. Hanover Twp.
The Westons then promptly filed a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, and their appeal proceeded to this Court. 7 to support a conclusion.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
J. Gaydos v. South Park Twp. ZHB & Sout Park Twp.
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Water Gap Capital Partners, LLC v. Smithfield Twp. Bd. of Supers.
“Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” EQT, 208 A.3d at 1024 (quoting Gorsline v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfield Township, 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018)). 4 A conditional use in a zoning ordinance “indicates legislative acceptance that the use is consistent with the zoning plan and a use application should only be denied where the adverse impact on the public interest exceeds that which might be expected in normal circumstances.” In re McGlynn, 974 A.2d 525, 537 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
S. Bethlehem Assoc. v. ZHB of Bethlehem Twp
Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
G. Pignetti & J. Pignetti v. DOT
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sweetwater Hamilton Twp., PA, LLC v. Hamilton Twp. ZHB & Hamilton Twp.
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence 6 as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fort Joy Dev. 2, L.P. v. Newtown Twp. Bd. of Supers.
Substantial evidence is “ such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept a Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
AUUE, Inc. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills ZHB v. Borough of Jefferson Hills & Residents of Jefferson Hills
As such, though we must accord “great weight and deference” to the Board’s interpretation of the Borough’s Zoning Ordinance, River’s Edge Funeral Chapel & Crematory, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Tullytown Borough, 150 A.3d 132, 139 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), “our standard of review is [nonetheless] de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lamar Advantage v. City of Pgh ZBA, Aplts.
Lamar appealed this determination to the Monroeville Zoning Hearing Board (“ZHB”), 8 Valley View Civic Ass’n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637, 639 (Pa. 1983). 9 Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield, 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018). [J-79-2020] - 8 arguing that, because the LED screen would replace the vinyl advertising copy, it was a modernization to a lawful nonconforming use.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Protect PT v. Penn Twp. ZHB & Olympus Energy LLC
In Gorsline [v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfield Township, 186 A.3d 375, 389 (Pa. 2018) (Gorsline II)], our Supreme Court determined 29 that municipalities are empowered to permit oil and gas development in any or all of its zoning districts.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Geerling Florist, Inc. v. Bd. of Supers. of Warrington Twp.
Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018) 13 Added by Act of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1329, as amended, 53 P.S. § 10913.2(a). 8 The Board further argues that the trial court erred in applying Section 603.1 of the MPC and by failing to apply other rules of statutory construction to determine the intention of the drafters of the Ordinance with respect to how base density should be calculated.
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Deweese, H.
See Commonwealth v. Deweese, No. 1998 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. filed May 8, 2017), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 186 A.3d 375 (Pa. 2018).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Foster, D., Aplt.
See Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 383 (Pa. 2018).
discussed
Cited "see"
Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Middlesex Twp. ZHB v. PennEnergy Resources, LLC
See Gorsline II, 186 A.3d at 389 (Footnote continued on next page…) 17 Frederick, Allegheny Township enacted a zoning ordinance that established oil and gas development as a permitted use in all township zoning districts so long as a number of standards relating to public health, safety, and welfare were met, such as road safety, land clearing, security measures, emergency planning, and noise and (continued…) (“[T]his decision should not be misconstrued as an indication that oil and gas development is never permitted in residential/agricultural districts, or that it is fundamentally inco…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Howard William DEWEESE
v.
Howard William DEWEESE
No. 69 MAP 2017.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jun 1, 2018.
186 A.3d 375
Gaetan J. Alfano, Esq., Michael Alan Morse, Esq., Alexander Michael Owens, Esq., Pietragallo, Gordon, Alfano, Bosick & Raspanti, L.L.P., DeWeese, for Appellant., Christopher Joseph Schmidt, Esq., Joshua D. Shapiro, Esq., Amy Zapp, Esq., PA Office of Attorney General, for Appellee.
Published
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2018, this appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently granted.