Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Township
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
HUTCHINSON, Justice.
Appellant, Miller and Son Paving, Inc., asks us to hold that local zoning ordinances cannot impose setback requirements on quarrying operations because the Legislature intended the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act to preempt the field. See section 17 of the Act of November 30, 1971, P.L. 554, 52 P.S. § 1396.17. The Wrightstown Township Zoning Hearing Board held the local zoning provisions on this subject were preserved by a provision of the statute excepting local zoning ordinances from “supersession”. The decision was affirmed in Bucks…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- National Land & Investment Co. v. Easttown Township Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Schubach v. SilverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Bilbar Construction Co. v. Easttown Township Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
- Surrick v. ZHB OF U. PROVIDENCE TP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Council of OakmontSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Boundary Drive Associates v. Shrewsbury Township Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Fernley v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Schuylkill Tp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Nettleton v. Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.