Nassif v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF CITY OF PITTSBURGH

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Nassif v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF CITY OF PITTSBURGH

448 A.2d 535, 498 Pa. 530, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 731

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedAugust 10, 1982

DocketPetition 36 D. Allocatur Docket 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 448 A.2d 535 (Nassif v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF CITY OF PITTSBURGH) 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

Nassif v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF CITY OF PITTSBURGH, 448 A.2d 535, 498 Pa. 530, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 731 (Pa. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

*531 ORDER OF COURT

PER CURIAM:

The petition for allowance of appeal is granted. In reviewing the de novo findings of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, the Commonwealth Court departed from the appropriate standard of review by independently assessing the credibility of the evidence adduced in the Court of Common Pleas. The Commonwealth Court improperly substituted its own view of the facts for the lower court’s factual conclusions, which were supported by the record. Consequently, the order of the Commonwealth Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that Court for a determination as to whether the Court of Common Pleas made an error in law or committed an abuse of discretion. See Overstreet v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Schuylkill Township, 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 397, 412 A.2d 169 (1980); Michaels Development Co. Inc. v. Benzinger Township Board of Supervisors, 50 Pa.Cmwlth. 281, 413 A.2d 743 (1980). See also, Vazoni v. Bridgeport Borough Council, 420 Pa. 411, 218 A.2d 235 (1966); Doyle v. Springfield Township, 394 Pa. 49, 145 A.2d 695 (1958).

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

*531 ORDER OF COURT

PER CURIAM:

The petition for allowance of appeal is granted. In reviewing the de novo findings of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, the Commonwealth Court departed from the appropriate standard of review by independently assessing the credibility of the evidence adduced in the Court of Common Pleas. The Commonwealth Court improperly substituted its own view of the facts for the lower court’s factual conclusions, which were supported by the record. Consequently, the order of the Commonwealth Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that Court for a determination as to whether the Court of Common Pleas made an error in law or committed an abuse of discretion. See Overstreet v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Schuylkill Township, 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 397, 412 A.2d 169 (1980); Michaels Development Co. Inc. v. Benzinger Township Board of Supervisors, 50 Pa.Cmwlth. 281, 413 A.2d 743 (1980). See also, Vazoni v. Bridgeport Borough Council, 420 Pa. 411, 218 A.2d 235 (1966); Doyle v. Springfield Township, 394 Pa. 49, 145 A.2d 695 (1958).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 A.2d 535, 498 Pa. 530, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nassif-v-board-of-adjustment-of-city-of-pittsburgh-pa-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack