H.R. Miller Co. v. Board of Supervisors
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentLarsen, Justice
I dissent. The majority overlooks a key fact in analyzing the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County and in so overlooking that fact makes a faulty assumption that undermines its resolution of the site specific relief issue. The common pleas court did not strike the one provision from the ordinance to cure its de facto exclusionary effect. Rather, the common pleas court struck the one provision because that court erroneously determined that it was the only provision specifically challenged in the zoning appeal brought by appellant, H.R. Miller Company, Inc. Opinion of the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Exton Quarries, Inc. v. Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Casey v. ZONING HEAR. BD. OF WARWICK TP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- HUMPHREYS v. Stuart Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Peirce AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Fernley v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Schuylkill Tp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.