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.
15 Pennsylvania opinions name it 6 courts 1943–2023 1 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 Appeal of Brickstone Realty Corp.green2 sentences2006See id. 2006See id. | 2 | 2 |
Lafayette College v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen2 sentences2014The decision refers to a conditional special exception use, stating, “we overturned the grant of a special exception where the plan submitted to the Board did not comply with the on-site parking requirement necessary to obtain a special exception even though the grant of the special exception was conditioned on the applicant obtaining off-site parking.” Edgmont Township v. Springton Lake Montessori School, Inc., 622 A.2d 418, 420 (1993) (referring to Lafayette College v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Easton, 588 A.2d 1323 (1991)). 2006In Lafayette College v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Easton, 138 Pa. Commw. 579, 587 , 588 A.2d 1323 (1991), we overturned the grant of a special exception where the plan submitted to the board did not comply with the on-site parking requirement necessary to obtain a special exception even though the grant of the special exception was conditioned on the applicant obtaining off-site parking. | 1 | 4 |
Edgmont Township v. Springton Lake Montessori School, Inc.green1 sentence2014The decision refers to a conditional special exception use, stating, “we overturned the grant of a special exception where the plan submitted to the Board did not comply with the on-site parking requirement necessary to obtain a special exception even though the grant of the special exception was conditioned on the applicant obtaining off-site parking.” Edgmont Township v. Springton Lake Montessori School, Inc., 622 A.2d 418, 420 (1993) (referring to Lafayette College v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Easton, 588 A.2d 1323 (1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Franklin Tp. v. COM., DEPT. OF ENV. RESOURCESgreen2 sentences1992This evidence, along with testimony in the record before the Board, clearly indicate that permitting owners to establish their arcade within a 200 foot range of Benedum Center, has a direct and immediate effect upon the Trust, rendering it “aggrieved” in that its “rights have been invaded or infringed.” Franklin Township v. Department of Environmental Resources, 500 Pa. 1, 4 , 452 A.2d 718, 719 (1982). *516 Similarly, we find that Common Pleas did not err in finding that the Association, organized to promote “quality” commercial development and representing approximately 60 property owners and 1992This evidence, along with testimony in the record before the Board, clearly indicate that permitting owners to establish their arcade within a 200 foot range of Benedum Center, has a direct and immediate effect upon the Trust, rendering it “aggrieved” in that its “rights have been invaded or infringed.” Franklin Township v. Department of Environmental Resources, 500 Pa. 1, 4 , 452 A.2d 718, 719 (1982). *516 Similarly, we find that Common Pleas did not err in finding that the Association, organized to promote “quality” commercial development and representing approximately 60 property owners and | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New York State v. Roberts
green
2 sentences1943In New York State v. Roberts, 171 U. S. 658 , it was held that a state franchise tax could be measured by a base which included income produced in part from the sale of imports in the original packages. 1943In New York State v. Roberts , 171 U.S. 658 , it was held that a state franchise tax could be measured by a base which included income produced in part from the sale of imports in the original packages. | 2 | 1943–1943 |
Monroe Land Investments v. Zoning Board of Adjustment and The City of Philadelphia and Broad Street West Civic Assoc. and J. Furey Appeal of: J. Furey and Broad Street West Civic Assoc.
green
1 sentence2023(District’s Br. at 17-18 (citing Monroe Land Invs. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 182 A.3d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018)).) The Board and Norristown (Appellees) respond there was no error in the Application’s denial because District failed to satisfy each of the Code’s objective requirements, including that the traffic generation/congestion and storage relating to the new use would be equal to or less than the existing use. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
City of Allentown Zoning Board of Adjustment v. Muhlenberg College
neutral
1 sentence2002As no prior cases at the appellate level had addressed the issue of whether a dormitory fell within the definition of an educational use, we relied on Board of Adjustment v. Muhlenberg College, 48 Pa. D. & C.2d 489 (C.P. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Gazebo, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences1989Consistent with our decision in Amoco, we held in Gazebo that the restaurant, as the applicant to remove a limitation on a use previously allowed by special exception, bore the burden of proving a subsequent substantial change in conditions, which, as we noted, “necessarily refers to factual circumstances ... .” Id. at 46 , 535 A.2d at 218 . 1989Consistent with our decision in Amoco, we held in Gazebo that the restaurant, as the applicant to remove a limitation on a use previously allowed by special exception, bore the burden of proving a subsequent substantial change in conditions, which, as we noted, “necessarily refers to factual circumstances ... .” Id. at 46 , 535 A.2d at 218 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Cherbel Realty Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
2 sentences1985Cherbel Realty Corporation v. Zoning Hearing Board, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 137 , 285 A.2d 905 (1972); Derr Flooring Company, Inc. v. Whitemarsh Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 341 , 285 A.2d 538 (1971). 1985Cherbel Realty Corporation v. Zoning Hearing Board, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 137 , 285 A.2d 905 (1972); Derr Flooring Company, Inc. v. Whitemarsh Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 341 , 285 A.2d 538 (1971). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Derr Flooring Co. v. Whitemarsh Township Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences1985Cherbel Realty Corporation v. Zoning Hearing Board, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 137 , 285 A.2d 905 (1972); Derr Flooring Company, Inc. v. Whitemarsh Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 341 , 285 A.2d 538 (1971). 1985Cherbel Realty Corporation v. Zoning Hearing Board, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 137 , 285 A.2d 905 (1972); Derr Flooring Company, Inc. v. Whitemarsh Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 341 , 285 A.2d 538 (1971). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Good Fellowship Ambulance Club's Appeal
neutral
1 sentence1970There being no evidence in this record that the grant of the special exception would in any way detrimentally affect public health, welfare or morals, appellants, if they qualify under the terms of the zoning ordinance, are entitled to the special exception (Ja cobi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 413 Pa. 286 (1964); Good Fellowship Ambulance Club’s Appeal, 406 Pa. 465 (1962)) and we would be disposed to direct the grant of the exception, hearing the case de novo or, in the alternative, find that the zoning board has abused its discretion or committed an error of law in refusing to grant same. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Jacobi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
1 sentence1970There being no evidence in this record that the grant of the special exception would in any way detrimentally affect public health, welfare or morals, appellants, if they qualify under the terms of the zoning ordinance, are entitled to the special exception (Ja cobi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 413 Pa. 286 (1964); Good Fellowship Ambulance Club’s Appeal, 406 Pa. 465 (1962)) and we would be disposed to direct the grant of the exception, hearing the case de novo or, in the alternative, find that the zoning board has abused its discretion or committed an error of law in refusing to grant same. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Pittsburgh Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Clairton
green
1 sentence1962This is so because the procedure provided by the enabling act for appeal from an administrative officer’s decision to the zoning board of adjustment and then to the court of common pleas is exclusive: Pittsburgh Outdoor Advertising Company v. Clairton, 390 Pa. 1 (1957), and cases cited therein. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.