Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Schlegel v. Zoning Hearing Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 31, 1976No. Appeals, Nos. 678 and 679 C.D. 1975Published

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinion by

Judge Blatt :

While I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case, I reiterate my position, which was previously expressed by Judge Rogers’ dissent in Driscoll v. Plymouth Township, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 404, 320 A.2d 444 (1974), that the merits of a zoning appeal should be considered by the court below in a proceeding to fix the amount of the bond which the court may in its discretion order an aggrieved citizen to post before he may further proceed with the appeal. Because the appellants did not attempt to introduce such evidence here, however, the issue…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Driscoll v. Plymouth TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Orleans v. Melrose Park Improvement Ass'nCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API