Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Campbell v. UGHES

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 12, 1972No. Appeal, 238 C.D. 1972Published

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinion by

Judge Crumlish :

For reasons different than those spoken by the majority, I concur in the result.

I acknowledge our decisions and those of the Supreme Court which hold that one asserting the invalidity of a zoning restriction has the heavy duty of proving that the regulation is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and that it has no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Bilbar Construction Company v. Easttown Township Board of Adjustment, 393 Pa. 62, 141 A. 2d 851 (1958); Bidwell, et al. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 4 Pa.…

2Cases cited10 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. Bilbar Construction Co. v. Easttown Township Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  4. Hitchman v. Township of OaklandMichigan Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Schmalz v. Buckingham Township Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

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