Legal Opinion

Colligan Zoning Case

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 23, 1960No. Appeal, 139PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Bell,

The Court, after taking testimony, reversed the Board of Adjustment and entered an Order directing the issuance of a requested building permit. The Borough of Whitehall appealed.

On January 1, 1938, Baldwin Highlands Plan, which contained 100 building lots, among which were those presently in controversy, was recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Allegheny County. The recorded plan contained a dedication of all streets *127plotted tliereon to public use forever. One of these streets was a J¡0 foot ivide street called Earlford Drive. This was a dead end…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Eubank v. City of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  4. White's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  5. Archbishop O'Hara's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. National Land & Investment Co. v. Easttown Township Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  2. C & M Developers, Inc. v. Bedminster Township Zoning Hearing BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Andress v. Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  4. Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Coronet Homes, Inc. v. McKenzieNevada Supreme Court · 1968

12 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