Legal Opinion
Kistler v. Swarthmore Borough
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided November 21, 1938No. Appeal, 219PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Baldrige, J.,
The validity of a borough ordinance is involved in this appeal.
The appellant, a resident of the borough of Swarth-more, filed a complaint under section 1010 of the General Borough Act of May 4, 1927, P. L. 519, art. X, as amended by the Act of May 18, 1933, P. L. 818, §1 (53 PS §12900), which provides that a complaint may be made to the court of quarter sessions by any person aggrieved, attacking the validity of an ordinance, within thirty days after the ordinance takes effect.
The ordinance assailed is Ho. 408, which became effective March 5, 1938, entitled “An…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Murphy v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Knowles's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Bryan v. City of ChesterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Town of Lincoln v. CournoyerSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1962
- Palumbo AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Thayer Amusement Corp. v. MoultonSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1939
- Commonwealth v. ChristopherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Bussone v. BlatchfordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.