Latrobe Speedway, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Latrobe Speedway, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board

701 A.2d 1358, 549 Pa. 575, 1997 Pa. LEXIS 2516

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 701 A.2d 1358 (Latrobe Speedway, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board) 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

Latrobe Speedway, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board, 701 A.2d 1358, 549 Pa. 575, 1997 Pa. LEXIS 2516 (Pa. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 19th day of NOVEMBER, 1997, the Respondent’s Motion to Quash is DENIED. The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, as to the following issue:

1. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in reversing the Court of Common Pleas’ determination that before considering a question of abandonment, the threshold issue was whether the landowner established that the property had nonconforming use status at the time the relevant zoning ordinance took effect.

2. Whether the Commonwealth Court, in finding that the Board improperly placed the burden of proof on Respondents, itself improperly placed both the burden of proof [1359]*1359and the burden of persuasion on Petitioner in reversing the Board’s decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 19th day of NOVEMBER, 1997, the Respondent’s Motion to Quash is DENIED. The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, as to the following issue:

1. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in reversing the Court of Common Pleas’ determination that before considering a question of abandonment, the threshold issue was whether the landowner established that the property had nonconforming use status at the time the relevant zoning ordinance took effect.

2. Whether the Commonwealth Court, in finding that the Board improperly placed the burden of proof on Respondents, itself improperly placed both the burden of proof [1359]*1359and the burden of persuasion on Petitioner in reversing the Board’s decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 A.2d 1358, 549 Pa. 575, 1997 Pa. LEXIS 2516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latrobe-speedway-inc-v-zoning-hearing-board-pa-1997.