Legal Opinion

Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Township

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 28, 1982PublishedCited by 47 opinions

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

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. National Land & Investment Co. v. Easttown Township Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Schubach v. SilverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Bilbar Construction Co. v. Easttown Township Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  5. 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

  1. Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Council of OakmontSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  2. Boundary Drive Associates v. Shrewsbury Township Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Fernley v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Schuylkill Tp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Nettleton v. Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

42 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