Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SOMERTON CIVIC ASSOCIATION v. ZONING BOARD ADJUSTMENT AND IRVIN GREEN (04/23/86)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: April 23, 1986.

SOMERTON CIVIC ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT
v.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND IRVIN GREEN, APPELLEES

Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in the case of Somerton Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment and Irvin Green, No. 3441 September Term, 1984.

COUNSEL

Eugene E. Kellis, Esq., Newtown, Pa. 18940 for appellant.

IRVIN GREEN, Franklin Spitzer, Esq., Leonard J. Bucki, Esq., Kevin C. McCullough, Esq., WOLF, BLOCK, SCHORR & SOLIS-COHEN, Philadelphia, Pa. 19102; Mary Rose Cunningham, Esq., Joy J. Bernstein, Esq., Philadelphia, Pa. 19102 for appellee

Opinion and Order by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 276]

The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia has applied for special relief pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 123 from a dictum of this court appearing in the opinion of the case of Somerton Civic Association Page 277} v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 94 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 271, 503 A.2d 500 (1986). The dictum was to the effect that the Zoning Board of Adjustment's apparent practice of either administering or not administering oaths to witnesses at its hearings, as the Board in its discretion decides was contrary to Pennsylvania statutory law applicable to governmental units requiring that witnesses at hearings of quasi-judicial tribunals be sworn.

The Zoning Board of Adjustment avers that there are 250 matters presently at issue before the Board in which hearings have been conducted without sworn testimony and, assuring us that the Board has taken remedial measures to conform to our dictum, asks with respect to its pending proceedings that our dictum should be declared to have only prospective effect. We will accede to this request and hence enter the following:

Order

And Now, this 23rd day of April, 1986, it is ORDERED that our dictum to the effect that it is improper for the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia not to require an oath of witnesses at its evidentiary hearings, shall have only prospective effect with respect to matters presently pending before the Board.

Disposition

AND NOW, this 23rd day of April, 1986, it is ORDERED that our dictum to the effect that it is improper for the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia not to require an oath of witnesses as its evidentiary hearings, shall have only prospective effect with respect to matters presently pending before the Board.

19860423

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.