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.
13 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thw Group, LLC v. Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence2020See THW Grp., 86 A.3d at 330 (holding that a proposed methadone clinic qualified as a use of property for treatment of patients and as a medical office); Freedom Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of City of Carlisle, 983 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (in appeal of denial of zoning application for lack of adequate parking, court held proposed methadone clinic and drug addiction treatment facility that would have on staff physician, licensed psychologist, nurses, and counselors was most similar to listed use of a medical clinic).10 10 A curative amendment is the vehicle by which a lan | 1 | 1 |
Kennedy House, Inc. v. Philadelphia Commission on Human Relationsgreen1 sentence2019Comm’n on Human Relations, 143 A.3d 476, 485 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (this Court cannot consider evidence that was never made a part of the original record). 7 Presently, the argument section of Landowner’s brief consists of three paragraphs. | 1 | 1 |
Sienkiewicz v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2005See id. at 978-79 . | 1 | 1 |
Fernley v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Schuylkill Tp.green2 sentences1992In Fernley v. Board of Supervisors of Schuylkill Township, 509 Pa. 413, 425 , 502 A.2d 585, 591 (1985), this Court determined that a successful challenger’s proposed land use plan must be approved by the governing body of the municipality “unless the appellee can show that appellants’ plan is incompatible with the site or reasonable, pre-existing health and safety codes and regulations relating to lands, structures or their emplacement on lands [which] apply to the development plan.” See also Casey v. Zoning Hearing Board of Warwick Township, 459 Pa. 219 , 328 A.2d 464 (1974) (successful chall 1992In Fernley v. Board of Supervisors of Schuylkill Township, 509 Pa. 413, 425 , 502 A.2d 585, 591 (1985), this Court determined that a successful challenger’s proposed land use plan must be approved by the governing body of the municipality “unless the appellee can show that appellants’ plan is incompatible with the site or reasonable, pre-existing health and safety codes and regulations relating to lands, structures or their emplacement on lands [which] apply to the development plan.” See also Casey v. Zoning Hearing Board of Warwick Township, 459 Pa. 219 , 328 A.2d 464 (1974) (successful chall | 1 | 1 |
Karpe v. Borough of Stroudsburggreen2 sentences1987We will not decide the issue of whether the new construction was in lact an allowable expansion of a nonconforming use, however, since the issue has not been raised. 4 See also Karpe v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 95 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 146, 149 , 504 A.2d 982, 983 (1986) where we stated that, “a landowner may claim a vested right to a permit issued erroneously and in contravention of zoning regulations.” 5 We will, however, address the Nowaks’ arguments with respect to the propriety of the issuance of the building permit as appropriate, infra. 6 This argument is presented in connection with the 1987We will not decide the issue of whether the new construction was in lact an allowable expansion of a nonconforming use, however, since the issue has not been raised. 4 See also Karpe v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 95 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 146, 149 , 504 A.2d 982, 983 (1986) where we stated that, “a landowner may claim a vested right to a permit issued erroneously and in contravention of zoning regulations.” 5 We will, however, address the Nowaks’ arguments with respect to the propriety of the issuance of the building permit as appropriate, infra. 6 This argument is presented in connection with the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harbucks Inc. v. Board of Supervisorsgreen2 sentences1992In Fernley v. Board of Supervisors of Schuylkill Township, 509 Pa. 413, 425 , 502 A.2d 585, 591 (1985), this Court determined that a successful challenger's proposed land use plan must be approved by the governing body of the municipality "unless the appellee can show that appellants' plan is incompatible with the site or reasonable, pre-existing health and safety codes and regulations relating to lands, structures or their *491 emplacement on lands [which] apply to the development plan." See also Casey v. Zoning Hearing Board of Warwick Township, 459 Pa. 219 , 328 A.2d 464 (1974) (successful 1992In Fernley v. Board of Supervisors of Schuylkill Township, 509 Pa. 413, 425 , 502 A.2d 585, 591 (1985), this Court determined that a successful challenger’s proposed land use plan must be approved by the governing body of the municipality “unless the appellee can show that appellants’ plan is incompatible with the site or reasonable, pre-existing health and safety codes and regulations relating to lands, structures or their emplacement on lands [which] apply to the development plan.” See also Casey v. Zoning Hearing Board of Warwick Township, 459 Pa. 219 , 328 A.2d 464 (1974) (successful chall | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Feldman v. Lafayette Green Condominium Ass'n
green
1 sentence2026Feldman v. Lafayette Green Condominium Association, 806 A.2d 497 , 502 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002); see also Choe v. From Decision of Philadelphia Board of Revision and Taxes, 251 A.3d 858 , 870 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (“Although the City noted, but did not definitively raise, the waiver issue, ‘an appellate court may sua sponte refuse to address an issue raised on appeal (Footnote continued on next page…) 5 Moreover, to the extent that Landowner has preserved any appellate claims for our review, after reviewing the record, Landowner’s brief, and the law, we conclude that the appellate issues have | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Pietropaolo v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Horn v. Township of Hilltown
green
1 sentence2024Id. (citing Horn v. Hilltown Township, 337 A.2d 858 (Pa. 1975)). 4 Trial Court Decision By opinion and order dated November 21, 2022, the trial court affirmed the Zoning Board’s adjudication. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Freedom Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of New Castle
green
1 sentence2020See THW Grp., 86 A.3d at 330 (holding that a proposed methadone clinic qualified as a use of property for treatment of patients and as a medical office); Freedom Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of City of Carlisle, 983 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (in appeal of denial of zoning application for lack of adequate parking, court held proposed methadone clinic and drug addiction treatment facility that would have on staff physician, licensed psychologist, nurses, and counselors was most similar to listed use of a medical clinic).10 10 A curative amendment is the vehicle by which a lan | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Baker v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
2 sentences2009To support its decision, the trial court relied on Baker v. Zoning Hearing Board, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 602 , 367 A.2d 819 (1976) (holding that an objector necessarily is aggrieved by a zoning hearing board’s decision where the objector is granted party status before the board without objection and the board grants the requested relief), and Active Amusement Company v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 84 Pa.Cmwlth. 538 , 479 A.2d 697 (1984) (same). 2009To support its decision, the trial court relied on Baker v. Zoning Hearing Board, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 602 , 367 A.2d 819 (1976) (holding that an objector necessarily is aggrieved by a zoning hearing board’s decision where the objector is granted party status before the board without objection and the board grants the requested relief), and Active Amusement Company v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 84 Pa.Cmwlth. 538 , 479 A.2d 697 (1984) (same). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Active Amusement Co. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences2009To support its decision, the trial court relied on Baker v. Zoning Hearing Board, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 602 , 367 A.2d 819 (1976) (holding that an objector necessarily is aggrieved by a zoning hearing board’s decision where the objector is granted party status before the board without objection and the board grants the requested relief), and Active Amusement Company v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 84 Pa.Cmwlth. 538 , 479 A.2d 697 (1984) (same). 2009To support its decision, the trial court relied on Baker v. Zoning Hearing Board, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 602 , 367 A.2d 819 (1976) (holding that an objector necessarily is aggrieved by a zoning hearing board’s decision where the objector is granted party status before the board without objection and the board grants the requested relief), and Active Amusement Company v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 84 Pa.Cmwlth. 538 , 479 A.2d 697 (1984) (same). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Choe v. PHILADELPHIA BD. OF LICENSE INSPECTION
green
1 sentence2007CACO Three, Inc., v. Supervisors of Huntington Township, 845 A.2d 991 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 580 Pa. 707 , 860 A.2d 491 (2004). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Caco Three, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Huntington Township
green
1 sentence2007CACO Three, Inc., v. Supervisors of Huntington Township, 845 A.2d 991 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 580 Pa. 707 , 860 A.2d 491 (2004). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Oxford v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2003None of the matters complained of by Graff amounts to the substantial deprivation of the use of his property as required by Oxford [v. Dep’t of Transp., 96 Pa.Cmwlth. 68 , 506 A.2d 990 (1986),] to establish a de facto taking of property. 2003None of the matters complained of by Graff amounts to the substantial deprivation of the use of his property as required by Oxford [v. Dep’t of Transp., 96 Pa.Cmwlth. 68 , 506 A.2d 990 (1986),] to establish a de facto taking of property. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cranberry Park Associates v. Cranberry Township Zoning Hearing Board
green
2 sentences2001In Cranberry Park Associates v. Cranberry Township Zoning Hearing Board, 561 Pa. 456 , 751 A.2d 165 (2000), our Supreme Court held that an ordinance that was not properly numbered, signed, dated, or recorded never became effective. 2001In Cranberry Park Associates v. Cranberry Township Zoning Hearing Board, 561 Pa. 456 , 751 A.2d 165 (2000), our Supreme Court held that an ordinance that was not properly numbered, signed, dated, or recorded never became effective. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Casey v. ZONING HEAR. BD. OF WARWICK TP.
green
2 sentences1992In Fernley v. Board of Supervisors of Schuylkill Township, 509 Pa. 413, 425 , 502 A.2d 585, 591 (1985), this Court determined that a successful challenger’s proposed land use plan must be approved by the governing body of the municipality “unless the appellee can show that appellants’ plan is incompatible with the site or reasonable, pre-existing health and safety codes and regulations relating to lands, structures or their emplacement on lands [which] apply to the development plan.” See also Casey v. Zoning Hearing Board of Warwick Township, 459 Pa. 219 , 328 A.2d 464 (1974) (successful chall 1992In Fernley v. Board of Supervisors of Schuylkill Township, 509 Pa. 413, 425 , 502 A.2d 585, 591 (1985), this Court determined that a successful challenger’s proposed land use plan must be approved by the governing body of the municipality “unless the appellee can show that appellants’ plan is incompatible with the site or reasonable, pre-existing health and safety codes and regulations relating to lands, structures or their emplacement on lands [which] apply to the development plan.” See also Casey v. Zoning Hearing Board of Warwick Township, 459 Pa. 219 , 328 A.2d 464 (1974) (successful chall | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Petrosky v. ZON. BD., UPPER CHICHESTER TP.
green
2 sentences1986Petrosky v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Upper Chichester, 485 Pa. 501 , 402 A.2d 1385 (1979). 1986Petrosky v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Upper Chichester, 485 Pa. 501 , 402 A.2d 1385 (1979). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.