Bodenan ex rel. Bodenan v. Atkins

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, “where a challenge is made within 30 days, nothing less than strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the MPC will allow the ordinance to stand”
• observing that issue of whether an ordinance was invalid based upon failure to readvertise after changes were made to a zoning map presented mixed questions of law and fact
• observing that issue of whether an ordinance was invalid based upon failure to readvertise after changes were made to a zoning map presented mixed questions of law and fact
• stating, “[a]fter 30 days, 10 Objectors acknowledge that there is a “separate protocol” for appeals filed after the 30- day limitation. Objectors’ Brief at 9 n.2. 10 substantial compliance with the procedural requirements will allow the ordinance to stand”
• property owners failed to satisfy their burden of rebutting applicable presumption of reliance, on challenge to township zoning ordinance based upon claim of failure of public notice brought 12 years after enactment of challenged ordinance
• “We affirm the Commonwealth Court's order, upholding ... [Section] 5571.1.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).