Legal Opinion

Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Plumstead Township

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 19, 1998No. 19 E.D. Appeal Docket 1997PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

We granted allocatur to determine whether the Commonwealth Court erred in holding that a township zoning ordinance, which was found unconstitutional due to its exclusion of quarrying as a permitted use, automatically effected a compensable temporary de facto taking of the landowner’s property. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court and hold that a per se compensable taking does not result from a zoning ordinance which is ultimately declared invalid.

On June 17, 1988, Miller and Son Paving, Inc., (Miller/Appellee), purchased…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. United Artists' Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Zettlemoyer v. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. McClimans v. Board of SupervisorsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Gaebel v. Thornbury TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Adams Outdoor Adv., Lp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Smithfield TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Pheasant Bridge Corp. v. Township of WarrenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2001
  3. MacHipongo Land and Coal Co., Inc. v. Com.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Clay County Ex Rel. County Commission of Clay v. Harley & Susie Bogue, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. Thomas A. McElwee & Son, Inc. v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API