14 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hazleton Area School District v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen2 sentences2019Thus, “[a]s the party filing a 18 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court summarized the Ogontz test in Hazleton Area School District v. Zoning Hearing Board, 778 A.2d 1205, 1210 (Pa. 2001), stating: The first step requires the reviewing court to determine, through examination of the statutes, which governmental entity, if any, the General Assembly expressly intended to be preeminent. 2019Thus, “[a]s the party filing a 18 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court summarized the Ogontz test in Hazleton Area School District v. Zoning Hearing Board, 778 A.2d 1205, 1210 (Pa. 2001), stating: The first step requires the reviewing court to determine, through examination of the statutes, which governmental entity, if any, the General Assembly expressly intended to be preeminent. | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Ogontz Area Neighbors Ass'ngreen2 sentences2003In the absence of this express legislative mandate, the second step requires the court “to determine legislative intent as to which agency is to prevail ... turnfing] to the statutory construction rule that legislative intent may be determined by a consideration, inter alia, of the consequences of a particular interpretation.” Id. at 628 , 483 A.2d at 455 . 3 Taking the first step of Ogontz analysis here, we discern no clear, express intent that Section 702 of the School Code preempt a local zoning ordinance. 2003In the absence of this express legislative mandate, the second step requires the court “to determine legislative intent as to which agency is to prevail ... turnfing] to the statutory construction rule that legislative intent may be determined by a consideration, inter alia, of the consequences of a particular interpretation.” Id. at 628 , 483 A.2d at 455 . 3 Taking the first step of Ogontz analysis here, we discern no clear, express intent that Section 702 of the School Code preempt a local zoning ordinance. | 2 | 8 |
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. City of Philadelphiagreen2 sentences2017In SEPTA v. City of Philadelphia, 101 A.3d 79, 88 (Pa. 2014) (“SEPTA III”), this Court recognized that, where a Commonwealth agency challenges a municipality‟s exercise of authority, the Ogontz test applies to resolve the conflict between the two instrumentalities of the state. 2017In SEPTA v. City of Philadelphia, 101 A.3d 79, 88 (Pa. 2014) (“SEPTA III”), this Court recognized that, where a Commonwealth agency challenges a municipality‟s exercise of authority, the Ogontz test applies to resolve the conflict between the two instrumentalities of the state. | 2 | 2 |
Dean v. Com., Dept. of Transp.green2 sentences2017Id. at 1182. 4 Appellants contend that, in SEPTA III, this Court resolved the first prong of the Ogontz test in their favor, and that the Commonwealth Court erred in ignoring that holding. 2017Id. at 1182. 4 Appellants contend that, in SEPTA III, this Court resolved the first prong of the Ogontz test in their favor, and that the Commonwealth Court erred in ignoring that holding. | 1 | 1 |
Kee v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commissiongreen1 sentence1999It quotes the statement in Kee II that “present circumstances do not show that the Commission should be free from the operation of local land use ordinances.” Id., 722 A.2d at 1127 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
County of Venango v. Borough of Sugarcreek
green
2 sentences2001Accordingly, the DPW’s statutory authority did not preempt the local zoning authority. *189 Similarly, in County of Venango v. Borough of Sugarcreek, 534 Pa. 1 , 626 A.2d 489 (1993), this Court found, again under the second prong of the Ogontz test, that there was no preemption of the local zoning law. 534 Pa. at 5 , 626 A.2d at 490 . 2001Accordingly, the DPW’s statutory authority did not preempt the local zoning authority. *189 Similarly, in County of Venango v. Borough of Sugarcreek, 534 Pa. 1 , 626 A.2d 489 (1993), this Court found, again under the second prong of the Ogontz test, that there was no preemption of the local zoning law. 534 Pa. at 5 , 626 A.2d at 490 . | 2 | 2001–2013 |
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. City of Philadelphia
green
2 sentences2017SEPTA v. City of Phila., 133 A.3d 292 (Pa. 2016).7 A. Initially, we address Appellants‘ assertion that this Court essentially resolved the first prong of the Ogontz test prior to our remand to the Commonwealth Court in SEPTA III. 2017SEPTA v. City of Phila., 133 A.3d 292 (Pa. 2016).7 A. Initially, we address Appellants‘ assertion that this Court essentially resolved the first prong of the Ogontz test prior to our remand to the Commonwealth Court in SEPTA III. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
SEPTA v. City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations
green
2 sentences2017On remand, a majority of the Commonwealth Court sitting en banc addressed the first prong of the Ogontz test, which it phrased as ―determin[ing] whether one legislative scheme was intended to have priority over the other.‖ SEPTA IV, 122 A.3d at 1168 . 2017On remand, a majority of the Commonwealth Court sitting en banc addressed the first prong of the Ogontz test, which it phrased as ―determin[ing] whether one legislative scheme was intended to have priority over the other.‖ SEPTA IV, 122 A.3d at 1168 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Saucon Valley School District v. Robert O.
green
2 sentences2015The only case where the Ogontz test was applied outside the context of land use is Saucon Valley School District v. Robert, 785 A.2d 1069 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). 2015The only case where the Ogontz test was applied outside the context of land use is Saucon Valley School District v. Robert, 785 A.2d 1069 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Philomeno & Salamone v. Board of Supervisors
green
1 sentence2015Id. 7 Ogontz Test At issue in Ogontz was the Commonwealth’s proposed construction of a mental health facility in a Philadelphia neighborhood that was zoned residential. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Board of Revision of Taxes
green
2 sentences2014SEPTA argues that its interpretation of Ogontz is supported by our holding in Board of Revision of Taxes, supra, that property SEPTA owned, but leased to a commercial entity, was not immune from local taxes. 2014SEPTA argues that its interpretation of Ogontz is supported by our holding in Board of Revision of Taxes, supra, that property SEPTA owned, but leased to a commercial entity, was not immune from local taxes. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Board of Commissioners v. Harsch
green
2 sentences1998They dispute the Commission's reliance upon Borough of Tunkhannock and note that in the present case the expansion was in part on to land that the Commission recently acquired, long after the adoption of the applicable zoning ordinances. [4] Further, Petitioners cite cases *1127 where particular statutes have been held not to preempt local zoning regulation, e.g., Board of Comm'rs of Ross Township v. Harsch, 78 Pa.Cmwlth. 395 , 467 A.2d 1183 (1983) (holding that review of the statutes and regulations relating to public welfare showed no basis for an inference that the legislature intended to s 1998They dispute the Commission's reliance upon Borough of Tunkhannock and note that in the present case the expansion was in part on to land that the Commission recently acquired, long after the adoption of the applicable zoning ordinances. [4] Further, Petitioners cite cases *1127 where particular statutes have been held not to preempt local zoning regulation, e.g., Board of Comm'rs of Ross Township v. Harsch, 78 Pa.Cmwlth. 395 , 467 A.2d 1183 (1983) (holding that review of the statutes and regulations relating to public welfare showed no basis for an inference that the legislature intended to s | 1 | 1998–1998 |
County of Venango v. Borough of Sugarcreek
neutral
2 sentences1993That court identified its decision in Tunkhannock as an application of the Ogontz test that controlled this case and affirmed. 141 Pa.Cmwlth. 46 , 596 A.2d 265 . 1993That court identified its decision in Tunkhannock as an application of the Ogontz test that controlled this case and affirmed. 141 Pa.Cmwlth. 46 , 596 A.2d 265 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.