8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Itama Development Associates, LP v. ZHB of the Twp. of Rostraver v. Twp. of Rostraver v. Minuteman Environmental Services, Inc.green1 sentence2024Further, to the extent that Applicant contends that its proposed uses are permitted under the Code, Applicant has failed to explain how its proposed uses fit within the permitted uses in the Code, as set forth in note 2, supra. Moreover, we observe that 7 Although Applicant’s brief does not use quotation marks, the quoted language actually constitutes a direct quote of the language contained in Limley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Port Vue Borough, 625 A.2d 54, 54 (Pa. 1993), and Itama Development Associates, LP v. Zoning Hearing Board of Township of Rostraver, 132 A.3d 1040, 1051 (Pa. Cmwlth. 20 | 1 | 1 |
Limley v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen1 sentence2024Further, to the extent that Applicant contends that its proposed uses are permitted under the Code, Applicant has failed to explain how its proposed uses fit within the permitted uses in the Code, as set forth in note 2, supra. Moreover, we observe that 7 Although Applicant’s brief does not use quotation marks, the quoted language actually constitutes a direct quote of the language contained in Limley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Port Vue Borough, 625 A.2d 54, 54 (Pa. 1993), and Itama Development Associates, LP v. Zoning Hearing Board of Township of Rostraver, 132 A.3d 1040, 1051 (Pa. Cmwlth. 20 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Street Road Bar & Grille, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
green
2 sentences2025In Street Road Bar & Grille, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 876 A.2d 346 (Pa. 2005), the Supreme Court dealt with an appeal stemming from the Liquor Control Board’s denial of a liquor license application 16 pursuant to Section 404 of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. § 4-404.17 Specifically, the Liquor Control Board, and the court of common pleas on de novo review, determined that the applicant failed to satisfy Section 404’s requirement that they be “a person of good repute[,]” prompting the applicant to challenge that determination and our Court to subsequently reverse. 2025Street Road, 876 A.2d at 347-48 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Schadt v. City of Bethlehem Zoning Hearing Board
neutral
1 sentence2018Id. at 443 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
1 sentence2015Further, Applicant could not prevail even under the relaxed standard set forth in Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1998), for the grant of a dimensional variance because mere evidence that Applicant would obtain a greater profit if the variance were granted was insufficient to prove hardship. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Baker v. Chartiers Township Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence2015It asserts that Baker v. Chartiers Township Zoning Hearing Board, 677 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), involved a spot zoning challenge that is analogous to Applicant’s challenge here. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Moyerman v. Glanzberg
green
2 sentences1993We hold that the Board properly rejected Applicant’s claim of “practical hardship” under Moyerman v. Glanzberg, 391 Pa. 387 , 138 A.2d 681 (1958). 1993We hold that the Board properly rejected Applicant’s claim of “practical hardship” under Moyerman v. Glanzberg, 391 Pa. 387 , 138 A.2d 681 (1958). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Merry v. ZONING BD. OF ADJUST.
green
2 sentences1990Merry v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 406 Pa. 393 , 178 A.2d 595 (1962); Warminster Area Child Day Care Ass’n, Inc. v. Upper Southampton Township Zoning Hearing Board, 35 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 541, 386 A.2d 1076 (1978). 1990Merry v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 406 Pa. 393 , 178 A.2d 595 (1962); Warminster Area Child Day Care Ass’n, Inc. v. Upper Southampton Township Zoning Hearing Board, 35 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 541, 386 A.2d 1076 (1978). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Warminster Area Child Day Care Ass'n v. Upper Southampton Township Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence1990Merry v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 406 Pa. 393 , 178 A.2d 595 (1962); Warminster Area Child Day Care Ass’n, Inc. v. Upper Southampton Township Zoning Hearing Board, 35 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 541, 386 A.2d 1076 (1978). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Sauers's License
neutral
1 sentence1905We have held that such a petition, if filed in due time and duly advertised entitles the applicant to a hearing and gives the court jurisdiction to grant the license if in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion it determines that the license is necessary for the accommodation of the public and the other essential facts are proved: Sauers’s License, 23 Pa. Superior Ct. 463 . | 1 | 1905–1905 |
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.