Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Mihal v. Zoning Board of Hazleton

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 18, 1988No. Appeal No. 1714 C.D. 1987Published

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinion by

Judge Barry:

Although I agree with the majority that this matter must be remanded for a determination of the merits of the appeal, I do so for different reasons.

It does not appear to me from the brief of the appellants that they rely on the argument that their appeal should not have been quashed because a copy of the document dated August 14, 1986 was not mailed to each of them personally but instead was mailed to the attorney who had accompanied them to the hearing on the landowners application for a use variance and variances from the applicable front yard, side yard,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Border v. Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API