Legal Opinion · Dissent

Glen-Gery Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 28, 2006No. 90 MAP 2005Published

1DissentJustice Saylor

As I read its opinion, the majority finds the amendment to Section 5571(c)(5) of the Judicial Code ineffective to accomplish the intended purpose of displacing the decisional law exemplified by Schadler v. Zoning Hearing Board of Weisenberg Township, 578 Pa. 177, 850 A.2d 619 (2004). See, e.g., Majority Opinion, op. at 1044 (“The addition of the term ‘intended’ [in Section 5571(c)(5) ] has no effect on the general reasoning of this Court in Schadler II [.]”). Further, the majority appears to deem the amendment unconstitutional as applied to defects in the process of enacting an ordinance that *156…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. LordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  2. Commonwealth v. CastilloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Commonwealth v. SchofieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. In Re Appeal of Realen Valley Forge Greenes AssociatesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Schadler v. Zoning Hearing Board of Weisenberg TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

2 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