Hammond v. Zoning Hearing Board

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he 45-day requirement is satisfied when the decision reached by a zoning board is communicated to the parties even though it is not then accompanied by findings of fact, by an opinion or by any explanation of the result.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Philm Corp. v. Washington Township
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-02-16· cited 12×
• Bartkowski Investment Group, Inc. v. Springfield Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.
  Delaware County Court of Common Pleas· 2012-03-30
• Township of Middle Smithfield v. Harima, Inc.
  Monroe County Court of Common Pleas· 2014-05-16

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hanna v. Board of Adjustment
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1962-07-31· cited 93×
• Heisterkamp v. ZHB, City of Lancaster
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-04-04· cited 34×
• Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. East Lansdowne Borough
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1967-03-15· cited 34×
• Friedlander v. Zoning Hearing Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-08-25· cited 30×
• Garchinsky v. Clifton Heights Borough
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1970-03-20· cited 21×
• Relosky v. Sacco
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-04-03· cited 17×
• Morgan v. Zoning Hearing Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1971-10-27· cited 12×
• A.Z.J.Z., Inc. v. Township of Springfield
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-06-20· cited 7×
• Altpa, Inc. v. North Huntingdon Township Zoning Hearing Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-06-04· cited 6×