Apt Pittsburgh Limited Partnership v. Penn Township Butler County Of Pennsylvania

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the plaintiff’s claim of a de facto exclusionary ordinance failed because there was no evidence the land could not be used for other purposes
• reasoning that questions of effective prohibition and federal preemption are legal issues, not subject to deferential judicial review
• explaining that “to succeed in its exclusionary zoning claim ... [the Plaintiff] had to prove that no other telecommunications provider, including itself, could build a functional tower ... ”
• noting that the TCA “places several substantive and procedural limits upon [local zoning] authority when it is exercised in relation to personal wireless service facilities”
• explaining that “to succeed in its exclusionary zoning claim ... [the Plaintiff] had to prove that no other telecommunications provider, including itself, could build a functional tower ... ”
• explaining that “to succeed in its exclusionary zoning claim . . . [the Plaintiff] had to prove that no other telecommunications provider, including itself, could build a functional tower . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).