Yecko v. Township Of Penn

387 F.2d 126, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4150
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedDecember 15, 1967
Docket16553_1
StatusPublished

This text of 387 F.2d 126 (Yecko v. Township Of Penn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Yecko v. Township Of Penn, 387 F.2d 126, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4150 (3d Cir. 1967).

Opinion

387 F.2d 126

Albert YECKO and Phillip Yecko, partners trading and doing
business as Yecko Bros., Appellants,
v.
The TOWNSHIP OF PENN, a Political Subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and William Mowry,
Russell Smail, and Charles Marshall,
Township Supervisors.

No. 16553.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Nov. 8, 1967.
Decided Dec. 15, 1967.

David M. Harrison, Harrison & Louik, Pittsburgh, Pa. (John M. Means, Pittsburgh, Pa., Saul J. Bernstein, Butler, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

Carmen V. Marinaro, Butler, Pa., for appellees.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an Order of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying the plaintiffs' petition to restrain enforcement of a zoning ordinance of the Township of Penn in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and to enjoin the Township from taking any action to deprive the plaintiffs of the use of their land as an automobile wrecking and parts yard.

Plaintiffs here contend, as they did below, that (1) the zoning ordinance is unconstitutional; (2) they had established an 'existing use' of the land occupied by them prior to the enactment of the ordinance; and (3) the 'existing use' was a 'vested interest' entitled to protection under the Constitution of the United States.

The District Court's Order was issued after extensive hearing. The evidence adduced supports the District Court's fact-finding that the asserted 'existing use' of the land did not create a 'vested interest' therein.

We further are of the opinion that the District Court did not err in its conclusion of law that the mooted zoning ordinance is constitutional.

The Order of the District Court will be affirmed for the reasons so well-stated in Chief Judge Gourley's opinion.

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

Related

Yecko v. Township of Penn
387 F.2d 126 (Third Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 F.2d 126, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yecko-v-township-of-penn-ca3-1967.