Legal Opinion

Sultanik v. Board of Supervisors

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 13, 1985No. Appeal, No. 1737 C.D. 1982PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

This zoning appeal involves claims that a zoning ordinance unlawfully excludes twin-home residences and shopping centers. Initially, however, the case presents a question of due process in curative amendment proceedings:

In view of the rule which invalidates a local zoning board decision when the functions of the municipality’s adversary counsel and adjudicative counsel are commingled in the person of one attorney, is a local curative amendment decision also invalid when such adversary and adjudicative attorneys are different individuals but from the same law firm,…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Casey v. ZONING HEAR. BD. OF WARWICK TP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Horn v. Township of HilltownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Ellick v. Bd. of Spvrs., Worcester Twp.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Gardner v. RepaskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  5. Hopewell Township Board of Supervisors v. GollaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. C & M Developers, Inc. v. Bedminster Township Zoning Hearing BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Montgomery Crossing Associates v. Township of Lower GwyneddCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. In re the Bartkowski Investment Group, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Newtown Township Board of Supervisors v. Greater Media Radio Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

15 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