Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Delchester Developers, L.P. v. London Grove Township Board of Supervisors
Morris v. South Coventry Township Board of Supervisors, 836 A.2d 1015, 1026 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (governing body properly conditioned approval of final plan upon engineer’s approval of design of wastewater storage and disposal system); Stein v. Easttown Township Board of Supervisors, 110 Pa.Cmwlth. 293 , 532 A.2d 906, 912 (1987) (board erred in denying preliminary plan, rather than conditioning approval of final plan on issuance of Department of Environmental Resources permit); Harrisburg Fore Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Lower Paxton Township, 21 Pa.Cmwlth. 137 , 344 A.2d 277, 282 (1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon
See Traymore Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Northampton Township, 24 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 564, 357 A.2d 729 (1976); Valley Run, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of Swatara Township, 21 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 649, 347 A.2d 517 (1975); Harrisburg Fore Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Lower Paxton Township, 21 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 137, 143, 344 A.2d 277, 282 (1975).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stein v. EASTTOWN TWP. BD. OF SUPVRS.
Setting aside the fact that Appellant's evidence showed that his application for the permit application was pending with DER, we agree that "it would appear to be more reasonable and consistent with the mandate of Section 508(2) to condition final subdivision approval upon the issuance of this . . . permit rather than to abort the plan at conception." Harrisburg Fore Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Lower Paxton Township, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 137, 143 , 344 A.2d 277, 282 (1975); Valley Run, Inc.; see also Traymore Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Northampton Township, 24 Pa. Commo…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stein v. Easttown Township Board of Supervisors
Setting aside the fact that Appellants evidence showed that his application for the permit application was pending with DER, we agree that “it would appear to be more reasonable and consistent with the mandate of Section 508(2) to condition final subdivision approval upon the issuance of this . . . permit rather than to abort the plan at conception.” Harrisburg Fore Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Lower Paxton Township, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 137, 143 , 344 A.2d 277, 282 (1975); Valley Run, Inc.; see also Traymore Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Northampton Township, 24 Pa. Co…
discussed
Cited "see"
Fetter v. Schwartz
(2×)
Nevertheless, the Court said: Although neither party has questioned the jurisdiction of this Court to hear this appeal, we must note that our appellate jurisdiction is ordinarily limited to appeals from final orders of common pleas courts, except where provided by statute, Philadelphia v. William Penn Business Institute, 423 Pa. 490 , 223 A.2d 850 (1966); Husak v. Berkel, Inc., 234 Pa.Super. 452 , 341 A.2d 174 ; see McConnell v. Schmidt, 234 Pa.Super. 400 , 339 A.2d 578 , order vacated and appeal quashed, 463 Pa. 118 , 344 A.2d 277 (1975); and that the appealability of an order goes to the jur…
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. Williams
(2×)
See McConnell v. Schmidt, 234 Pa.Super. 400 , 339 A.2d 578 , order vacated and appeal quashed, 463 Pa. 118 , 344 A.2d 277 (1975).
examined
Cited "see"
MacKanick v. Rubin
(4×)
In spite of the clear import of the preceding, we must reluctantly recognize that we are without power to reverse the action of the court below at this procedural juncture and that this appeal must be quashed, because the order appealed from is interlocutory. [3] Although neither party has questioned the jurisdiction of this Court to hear this appeal, we must note that our appellate jurisdiction is ordinarily limited to appeals from final orders of common pleas courts, except where provided by statute, Philadelphia v. William Penn Business Institute, 423 Pa. 490 , 223 A.2d 850 (1966); Husak v.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schultheis v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF UPPER BERN TOWNSHIP
Compare Harrisburg Fore Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Lower Paxton Township, 21 Pa.Cmwlth. 137 , 344 A.2d 277 (1975) (stating that provisions which pertain broadly to health, safety and welfare are too general).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pace Resources, Inc. v. Shrewsbury Township Planning Commission
The idea of providing an “adequate” water supply and the installation of such systems so as not to “endanger or decrease” ground water supplies of adjacent land are insufficient standards by which to deny a proposed subdivision. “[T]here is no statutory authority to permit such nebulous reasons to defeat a subdivision plan.” Brauns v. Swarthmore Borough, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 627, 635 , 288 A.2d 830, 834 (1972); See also Harrisburg Fore Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Lower Paxton, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 137 , 344 A.2d 277 (1975); Goodman v. Board of Commissioners of the To…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Mancuso
Compare McConnell v. Schmidt, 234 Pa.Super. 400 , 339 A.2d 578 (1975), vac’d and quashed as interlocutory, 463 Pa. 117 , 344 A.2d 277 (1975); Commonwealth v. Ruceo, 229 Pa.Super. 247 , 324 A.2d 388 (1974); and Norman v. Norfolk and Western Ry.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Margaret A. McCONNELL, Petitioner,
v.
E. Edward SCHMIDT
v.
E. Edward SCHMIDT
833 Allocatur Docket.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Sep 4, 1975.
R. Stanton Wettick, Jr., Pittsburgh, for petitioner., John V. Adams, Jr., Adams & Hillen, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino.
Cited by 10 opinions | Published
[*119] OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.The petition for allowance of appeal is granted. The order of the Superior Court is vacated, and the appeal is quashed as having been brought from an interlocutory order.