• Disclaimer
  
• Proposed Legislation
  
• State Statutes
  
• State Statutes Referenced in MPC
  
• Other State Statutes

Key Topic: Miscellaneous

Cases are listed below in alphabetical order:
*Click on case name to review case summary.

• Actual prejudice is a necessary element of “laches” when a governing board delays enforcement
  

  Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. Department of Transportation (2004)

• Mandamus is only proper when there is a clear right and no other remedy at law
  

  Barness Land Development Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Washington Twp. (2004)

• Airport Zoning Act does not require municipalities to enact a stand-alone model airport hazard ordinance
  

  Baublitz v. Chanceford Tp. Board of Supervisors (2005)

• Regulating of clearcutting forest land
  

  Chrin Brothers, Inc. v. Williams Twp. ZHB, et al. (2003)

• ZHB members should be recused when unable to act impartially
  

  Christman v. ZHB of the Twp. of Windsor (2004)

• Standing to apply for relief in zoning matters
  

  Collier Stone Co. v. Twp. of Collier Board of Commissioners (1999)

• Governmental Immunity
  

  Gramlich v. Lower Southampton Twp. (2003)

• A planning commission is merely a recommendatory body, the final decisions for zoning rests in the elected officials
  

  Gratton v. Conte (1950)

• DEP storm water permits were permissible policy, not a regulation
  

  Home Builders Asso. of Chester, et al. v. Comm. PA, DEP et al. (2003)

• An ordinance should be read together and use common understanding of words to interpret
  

  In re: Application of Brandywine Realty Trust to the Newtown Twp. ZHB (2004)

• Condemnation Hearing must follow the Sunshine Act’s procedures
  

  In re Condemnation by West Chester Area School District (2001)

• A municipal authority's power of eminent domain includes the power to acquire private sewer system and allows condemnation of a lesser estate than fee simple
  

  In re Condemnation (Newport Homeowner's Assn.) (2005)

• A state agency must comply with local zoning and land use restrictions in the absence of a clear legislative intent to give the agency preemptive land use powers
  

  Kightlinger v. Bradford Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005)

• Encroaching tree roots do not create a prescriptive easement
  

  Koresko v. Farley, et al. (2004)

• Zoning ordinances validity under FHA and ADA
  

  Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc. v. Springfield Twp. (1999)

• Solicitor’s fees for plan review
  

  Mountain Village v. The Board of Supervisors of Longswamp Twp. (2003)

• To establish entitlement to an injunction, a municipality needs only to prove a violation of its ordinance, not irreparable harm to the municipality.
  

  Paupack Township, et al. v. Lake Moc-A-Tek, Inc., et al. (2004)

• The US Supreme Court is the only federal court that may void a state court
  

  Teed v. Hilltown Township (2004)

• Even after a hazardous waste impoundment is closed, it is still considered to be a use of the land
  

  Warner Jenkinson Company v. ZHB of Robeson Twp. (2004)

• Township lease of public lands creates a subdivision
  

  White v. Twp. of Upper St. Clair (2002)

• ZHB has exclusive power to appoint the Board’s solicitor
  

  ZHB of the City of Uniontown v. City Council of the City of Uniontown (1988)

DISCLAIMER:
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.

Back to Top