Kunkle v. Zaleski

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kunkle v. Zaleski

208 A.2d 840, 417 Pa. 631, 1965 Pa. LEXIS 459

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 20, 1965

DocketAppeal, 119

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 208 A.2d 840 (Kunkle v. Zaleski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kunkle v. Zaleski, 208 A.2d 840, 417 Pa. 631, 1965 Pa. LEXIS 459 (Pa. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen,

To the within complaint in equity the defendants filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer; the lower court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint.

The City of New Kensington established its own planning commission and adopted the county land subdivision regulations as its own. The City recorded a plan of lots without the prior approval of the county planning commission. Without indicating our approval or disapproval of the procedure followed here, the action of the lower court in sustaining the demurrer must be affirmed.

Plaintiff has not pled any specific damage or injury to his property that would entitle him to equitable relief. The enforcement of zoning restrictions is reserved to those who are or will be damaged by their lack of observance. Even an adjoining property owner is required to show that his property is damaged as a result of a violation of the zoning regulation before he has a right to appeal to the courts for aid in enjoining the continuing infraction of the law. Phillips v. Griffiths, *633 36 6 Pa. 468, 77 A. 2d 375 (1951); Shoemaker v. York Junior College, 30 Pa. D. & C. 2d 750 (1963).

No damage to the property of plaintiff-appellant is shown and none is alleged hence, plaintiff has no standing to institute this action.

Decree affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Mr. Justice Musmanno dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen,

To the within complaint in equity the defendants filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer; the lower court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint.

The City of New Kensington established its own planning commission and adopted the county land subdivision regulations as its own. The City recorded a plan of lots without the prior approval of the county planning commission. Without indicating our approval or disapproval of the procedure followed here, the action of the lower court in sustaining the demurrer must be affirmed.

Plaintiff has not pled any specific damage or injury to his property that would entitle him to equitable relief. The enforcement of zoning restrictions is reserved to those who are or will be damaged by their lack of observance. Even an adjoining property owner is required to show that his property is damaged as a result of a violation of the zoning regulation before he has a right to appeal to the courts for aid in enjoining the continuing infraction of the law. Phillips v. Griffiths, *633 36 6 Pa. 468, 77 A. 2d 375 (1951); Shoemaker v. York Junior College, 30 Pa. D. & C. 2d 750 (1963).

No damage to the property of plaintiff-appellant is shown and none is alleged hence, plaintiff has no standing to institute this action.

Decree affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Mr. Justice Musmanno dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.2d 840, 417 Pa. 631, 1965 Pa. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kunkle-v-zaleski-pa-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack