Legal Opinion

In Re Appeal of FPA Corp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 18, 1976No. Appeal, 1030 C.D. 1975PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge Rogers,

In Girsh Appeal, 437 Pa. 237, 263 A.2d 395 (1970), our Supreme Court held a zoning ordinance which failed to provide for multi-family housing, in that case apartment structures, to be unconstitutional. In Camp Hill Development Co., Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Dauphin, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 519, 319 A.2d 197 (1973), this Court held that the Girsh principle applied equally to townhouses. In Casey v. Zoning Hearing Board of Warwick Township, 459 Pa. 219, 328 A.2d 464 (1974), our Supreme Court held that the “pending ordinance rule” — that an application for a…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Girsh AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  2. Casey v. ZONING HEAR. BD. OF WARWICK TP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Lhormer v. BowenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  4. Boron Oil Co. v. KimpleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  5. Camp Hill Development Co. v. Zoning Board of AdjustmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Schatz v. New Britain Township Zoning Hearing Board of AdjustmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  2. Appeal of the Board of Supervisors v. Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. In Re Appeal of Realen Valley Forge Greenes AssociatesCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Highley v. East Whiteland TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Perlstein v. Borough of MonroevilleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

5 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