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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1964–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
William Chersky Joint Enterprises v. Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence2024See 231 A.2d at 759-60 . | 1 | 1 |
Appeal of Philadelphia Center for Developmental Services, Inc.green2 sentences2022Servs., Inc., 462 A.2d 962, 965 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).18 Thus, here, Laurel bore the burden of demonstrating entitlement to the requested special exception by establishing that its development proposal comported with the objective requirements of the Code. 2022See id. | 1 | 1 |
Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence2012Id. at 82. | 1 | 1 |
Krinks' Case (Mckeesport's Appeal)green1 sentence1964As stated in Krinks’ Case, 128 Pa. Superior Ct. 405, 408 (1937): “Factual questions which relate to the nature and use of premises are primarily within the province of the administrative officials and boards appointed to enforce the provisions of zoning laws. . . .” Appellant has also failed to prove to the satisfaction of this court that the board’s evaluation of the demeanor, testimony and lack of forthrightness on the part of appellant’s principal witness, Manuel M. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Valley View Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences2005By ‘substantial evidence’ we mean such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 555 , 462 A.2d at 640 . (citations omitted) Therefore, the inquiry of this court is limited to whether the board committed an error of law and whether substantial evidence in the record supports the board’s actions in granting the requested special exception subject to the conditions imposed by the board. 1. 2005By ‘substantial evidence’ we mean such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 555 , 462 A.2d at 640 . (citations omitted) Therefore, the inquiry of this court is limited to whether the board committed an error of law and whether substantial evidence in the record supports the board’s actions in granting the requested special exception subject to the conditions imposed by the board. 1. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lower Merion Township v. Enokay, Inc.
green
1 sentence1971Delaware County Community College Appeal, 534 Pa. 264 (1969), Lower Merion Township v. Enokay, Inc., 427 Pa. 128 (1967), Jacobi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 413 Pa. 286 (1964), Archbishop O’Hara’s Appeal, 389 Pa. 35 (1957).” Shell Oil Company, throughout the hearing displayed a willingness to accept Board-imposed conditions upon the operation of the proposed service station. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Corrado v. Arena
green
1 sentence1971Delaware County Community College Appeal, 534 Pa. 264 (1969), Lower Merion Township v. Enokay, Inc., 427 Pa. 128 (1967), Jacobi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 413 Pa. 286 (1964), Archbishop O’Hara’s Appeal, 389 Pa. 35 (1957).” Shell Oil Company, throughout the hearing displayed a willingness to accept Board-imposed conditions upon the operation of the proposed service station. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Caldwell v. Board of Adjustment of Northampton Township
neutral
1 sentence1971Rep. 573 (1968), 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 222 , 273 A. 2d 557 (1971), where this court determined that sufficient evidence was presented to the Board to justify its refusal to grant the requested special exception. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Commonwealth v. Mann
neutral
1 sentence1971Rep. 573 (1968), 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 222 , 273 A. 2d 557 (1971), where this court determined that sufficient evidence was presented to the Board to justify its refusal to grant the requested special exception. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Jacobi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
1 sentence1971Delaware County Community College Appeal, 534 Pa. 264 (1969), Lower Merion Township v. Enokay, Inc., 427 Pa. 128 (1967), Jacobi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 413 Pa. 286 (1964), Archbishop O’Hara’s Appeal, 389 Pa. 35 (1957).” Shell Oil Company, throughout the hearing displayed a willingness to accept Board-imposed conditions upon the operation of the proposed service station. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Archbishop O'Hara's Appeal
green
1 sentence1971Delaware County Community College Appeal, 534 Pa. 264 (1969), Lower Merion Township v. Enokay, Inc., 427 Pa. 128 (1967), Jacobi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 413 Pa. 286 (1964), Archbishop O’Hara’s Appeal, 389 Pa. 35 (1957).” Shell Oil Company, throughout the hearing displayed a willingness to accept Board-imposed conditions upon the operation of the proposed service station. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.