Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Nomination of Flahertygreen2 sentences2020Id. at 6-7 (citing Notes of Testimony (“N.T.”), 9/7/2020, at 41, 44, 67). 2020Lastly, Objectors challenge the lower court’s reliance upon the apparent “impracticability of appending Scroggin’s Affidavit under current circumstances, including Covid-19.” Id. (quoting Slip Op. at 9). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Spotzgreen1 sentence2025See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (claim unreviewable and waived for lack of development where appellant did not develop the claim factually or legally, did not support it with citations, and the court could not discern what error allegedly occurred). | 1 | 1 |
Laughman v. ZONING HEARING BD. OF NEWBERRY TOWNSHIPgreen1 sentence2022However, the owners of property one-half mile and one mile or more away from the challenged zoning area have been deemed to not be in close proximity in order to confer standing.” Laughman, 964 A.2d at 22-23 (holding that (Footnote continued on next page…) 20 Objectors claim that direct and corroborative evidence showed that they have experienced actual harm from facilities authorized by Ordinance 1-2014, including specifically the Moore Park well pad. | 1 | 1 |
In re Appeal of Davisgreen1 sentence2022Ultimately, on July 9, 2020, this Court held: Pursuant to the MPC, the Second Class Township Code,[5] the Borough Code,[6] and Appeal of Davis[, 644 A.2d 220, 223 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994)], when presented with Objectors’ motion to present additional evidence, it was incumbent upon the trial court to determine: (1) the boundary line between the Borough and the Township; (2) where the cell tower site is situate in relation thereto; and (3) whether or not the Board possessed jurisdiction to dispose of the variance application in the first instance. | 1 | 1 |
Valley View Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence2020Board’s Letter filed 11/27/17. 7 Where, as here, the trial court does not take additional evidence, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Board committed an error of law or “a manifest abuse of discretion.” Valley View Civic Ass’n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637, 639 (Pa. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Luzerne County Children & Youth Services v. Department of Public Welfaregreen1 sentence2018Welfare, 826 A.2d 84, 86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (stating that an issue is moot if, in ruling upon the issue, a court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect). 7 All of Objectors’ challenges apply to both Ordinance 2 and Ordinance 4, except for Objectors’ challenge that the enactment of Ordinance 4 failed to comply with Section 609 of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10609, which Objectors contend requires that proposed zoning amendments be referred to the planning body before enactment. | 1 | 1 |
Town & Country Management Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen1 sentence2017Thus, although this Court has held that the Board is not bound by the rule precluding the admission of hearsay evidence, Town & Country Management Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Emmaus, 671 A.2d 790, 792 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), hearsay evidence must be sufficiently corroborated to be considered competent evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Philadelphia v. Angelonegreen1 sentence2016Since the trial court took no new evidence, it is the ZBA’s “decision, not the [trial] court’s [decision], we must review.” City of Phila. v. Angelone, 280 A.2d 672, 676 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1971); see also In re Appeal of Brickstone Realty Corp., 789 A.2d 333 , 338 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (“Our standard of review . . . pertains to whether the [zoning board], not the trial court, erred or abused its discretion.”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Appeal of Brickstone Realty Corp.green1 sentence2016Since the trial court took no new evidence, it is the ZBA’s “decision, not the [trial] court’s [decision], we must review.” City of Phila. v. Angelone, 280 A.2d 672, 676 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1971); see also In re Appeal of Brickstone Realty Corp., 789 A.2d 333 , 338 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (“Our standard of review . . . pertains to whether the [zoning board], not the trial court, erred or abused its discretion.”). | 1 | 1 |
In re Tax Claim Bureau of Lehigh County 2012 Judicial Tax Salegreen1 sentence2015See In re Tax Claim Bureau of Lehigh County 2012 Judicial Tax Sale, 107 A.3d 853 (Pa.Cmwlth.2015) (a party’s failure to develop an issue in the argument section of its brief constitutes waiver of the issue). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Driscollgreen2 sentences2011If, indeed, that is the prospective rule that the OIS would adopt, I note that it deeply discounts the value of those otherwise unchallenged signatures and of those respective "voters' right to elect the candidate of their choice." In re Nomination Petition of Driscoll, 577 Pa. 501 , 847 A.2d 44, 49 (2004); In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671 , 770 A.2d 327, 331 (2001); see also Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 715-16 , 94 S.Ct. 1315 , 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974). 2011If, indeed, that is the prospective rule that the OIS would adopt, I note that it deeply discounts the value of those otherwise unchallenged signatures and of those respective "voters' right to elect the candidate of their choice." In re Nomination Petition of Driscoll, 577 Pa. 501 , 847 A.2d 44, 49 (2004); In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671 , 770 A.2d 327, 331 (2001); see also Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 715-16 , 94 S.Ct. 1315 , 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Lubin v. Panishgreen2 sentences2011If, indeed, that is the prospective rule that the OIS would adopt, I note that it deeply discounts the value of those otherwise unchallenged signatures and of those respective "voters' right to elect the candidate of their choice." In re Nomination Petition of Driscoll, 577 Pa. 501 , 847 A.2d 44, 49 (2004); In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671 , 770 A.2d 327, 331 (2001); see also Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 715-16 , 94 S.Ct. 1315 , 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974). 2011If, indeed, that is the prospective rule that the OIS would adopt, I note that it deeply discounts the value of those otherwise unchallenged signatures and of those respective "voters' right to elect the candidate of their choice." In re Nomination Petition of Driscoll, 577 Pa. 501 , 847 A.2d 44, 49 (2004); In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671 , 770 A.2d 327, 331 (2001); see also Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 715-16 , 94 S.Ct. 1315 , 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Board of Commissioners of Cheltenham Twp. v. Hansen-Lloyd, L.P.
green
1 sentence2025Citing Board of Commissioners of Cheltenham Township v. Hansen-Lloyd, L.P., 166 A.3d 496 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), affirmed, 211 A.3d 845 (Pa. 2019), the ZHB stated that in determining whether a proposed land development satisfies Bethlehem’s zoning requirements, the ZHB may “consider[] the existence of site characteristics,” regardless of whether they fall inside or outside Bethlehem’s borders. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re: ZHB of Cheltenham Twp 12-16-15 Decision
green
1 sentence2025Citing Board of Commissioners of Cheltenham Township v. Hansen-Lloyd, L.P., 166 A.3d 496 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), affirmed, 211 A.3d 845 (Pa. 2019), the ZHB stated that in determining whether a proposed land development satisfies Bethlehem’s zoning requirements, the ZHB may “consider[] the existence of site characteristics,” regardless of whether they fall inside or outside Bethlehem’s borders. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Estate of Karschner
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
C.A. Reuther and A.M. Diakatos v. Delaware County Bureau of Elections and C. Rossi
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Marshall v. City of Philadelphia
green
2 sentences2018The trial court found that "[w]hile the 2013 [Application] involved the same [P]roperty and the same parties, and the request set forth in the [2016 A]pplication is similar, it is not the same, in that [Applicant] requested a special exception under a different article of the Ordinance ... and ... made a different request for relief." (June 14, 2017 Trial Ct. Op. at 9.) The trial court stated that Applicant now seeks to reduce the number of commercial spaces from two to one and maintain the residential space, whereas the 2013 Application sought three commercial spaces and no residential spaces 2018The trial court found that "[w]hile the 2013 [Application] involved the same [P]roperty and the same parties, and the request set forth in the [2016 A]pplication is similar, it is not the same, in that [Applicant] requested a special exception under a different article of the Ordinance ... and ... made a different request for relief." (June 14, 2017 Trial Ct. Op. at 9.) The trial court stated that Applicant now seeks to reduce the number of commercial spaces from two to one and maintain the residential space, whereas the 2013 Application sought three commercial spaces and no residential spaces | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Robinson Township v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2018The Zoning Board rejected Objectors' claim under the Environmental Rights Amendment, explaining that Objectors' reliance on Robinson Township v. Commonwealth , 623 Pa. 564 , 83 A.3d 901 (2013) (plurality) ( Robinson Township II ), 11 was misplaced. 2018The Zoning Board rejected Objectors' claim under the Environmental Rights Amendment, explaining that Objectors' reliance on Robinson Township v. Commonwealth , 623 Pa. 564 , 83 A.3d 901 (2013) (plurality) ( Robinson Township II ), 11 was misplaced. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bailey v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
1 sentence2016Similar to statutes, the fundamental objective in interpreting a municipal ordinance is to determine the intent of the legislative body in enacting the ordinance. 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(a); Bailey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Phila., 801 A.2d 492 (Pa. 2002). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bussinger v. Dyne
neutral
1 sentence2016Bussinger v. Dyne, 76 A.3d 137 , 140 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013), appeal denied, 74 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2014). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
KAUFFMAN v. Osser
green
2 sentences2015The trial court properly cited Kauffman v. Osser, 441 Pa. 150 , 271 A.2d 236 (1970), in which registered Democratic electors filed a declaratory judgment action 10 in the trial court against the Philadelphia Board of Elections and its chief clerk challenging the validity of Section 1301 of the Election Code which permits electors and their spouses who are on vacation to vote by absentee ballot and requires a deposit to challenge an absentee ballot. 2015The trial court properly cited Kauffman v. Osser, 441 Pa. 150 , 271 A.2d 236 (1970), in which registered Democratic electors filed a declaratory judgment action 10 in the trial court against the Philadelphia Board of Elections and its chief clerk challenging the validity of Section 1301 of the Election Code which permits electors and their spouses who are on vacation to vote by absentee ballot and requires a deposit to challenge an absentee ballot. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Great Valley School District v. Zoning Hearing Board of East Whiteland Township
green
2 sentences2012Based on this Court’s holding in Great Valley School District v. Zoning Hearing Board of East Whiteland Township, 863 A.2d 74 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004), the trial court determined Applicant’s notice of appeal complied with the specificity requirements contained in Section 1003-A(a) of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). 4 Thus, it denied Objectors’ motion to quash. 2012Based on this Court’s holding in Great Valley School District v. Zoning Hearing Board of East Whiteland Township, 863 A.2d 74 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004), the trial court determined Applicant’s notice of appeal complied with the specificity requirements contained in Section 1003-A(a) of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). 4 Thus, it denied Objectors’ motion to quash. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re Nomination of Paulmier
green
2 sentences2011Relying on our Supreme Court’s holding in In re Nomination Petition of Paulmier, 594 Pa. 433 , 937 A.2d 364 (2007), the trial court rejected Objectors’ argument that Candidate’s failure to sign the financial statement renders the statement a nullity. 2011Relying on our Supreme Court’s holding in In re Nomination Petition of Paulmier, 594 Pa. 433 , 937 A.2d 364 (2007), the trial court rejected Objectors’ argument that Candidate’s failure to sign the financial statement renders the statement a nullity. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
McGonigle v. LOWER HEIDELBERG TP. ZONING HEARING BD.
green
1 sentence2009In support, Objectors point to this Court’s decision in McGonigle, 858 A.2d at 668-69 , in which we stated: “A significant factor in determining the reasonableness of land use restrictions is whether the restrictions are consistent with stated purposes of the particular zoning district.” Contrary to Objectors’ assertions, this case does not involve an analysis of any “restrictions” on land use; rather, this case involves Objectors’ challenge to ordinance amendments which permit a certain use by right where such use was not specifically allowed previously. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Association of Concerned Citizens v. Butler Township Board of Supervisors
green
1 sentence1992Relying on this court’s recent decision in Association of Concerned Citizens of Butler Valley v. Butler Township Board of Supervisors, 135 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 262, 580 A.2d 470 (1990), Appellants argue that unless a permit to build or develop the property is issued by the government body, an appeal from the legislative act of rezoning is not ripe for adjudication. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.