Legal Opinion · Dissent

Naylor v. Township of Hellam

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 20, 2001No. 96-SU-04112-08Published

1DissentNewman, Justice

Because I believe that the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as reenacted and amended, 53 P.S. §§ 10101-11202, does grant a municipality the power to enact a temporary moratorium on certain types of subdivision and land development while the municipality revises its zoning and subdivision land development ordinances, I respectfully dissent.

As the Majority points out, the stated purpose of the MPC is very broad. Section 105 defines the purpose of the act:

It is the intent, purpose and scope of this act to protect and promote safety, health and morals; to…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Golden v. Planning Board of RamapoNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
  3. Kline v. HarrisburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  4. Monmouth Lumber Co. v. Township of OceanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1952
  5. Town of Lebanon v. WoodsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1965

17 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