# Schlegel v. Zoning Hearing Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · March 31, 1976 · 24 Pa. Commw. 183

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6363034

## Case

- **Full name:** Barton E. Schlegel and Lucille J. Schlegel, his wife, and John C. Yastrzab and Caroline Yastrzab, his wife v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Northampton and Market Operators, Inc., (2 cases)
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 31, 1976
- **Citations:** 24 Pa. Commw. 183; 354 A.2d 596; 1976 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 961
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blatt
- **Judges:** Blatt, Bowman, Crumlish, Kramer, Mencer, Rogers, Wilkinson
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6363034

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
Judge Blatt :
While I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case, I reiterate my position, which was previously expressed by Judge Rogers’ dissent in Driscoll v. Plymouth Township, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 404 , 320 A.2d 444 (1974), that the merits of a zoning appeal should be considered by the court below in a proceeding to fix the amount of the bond which the court may in its discretion order an aggrieved citizen to post before he may further proceed with the appeal. Because the appellants did not attempt to introduce such evidence here, however, the issue need not be reached. Orleans v. The Melrose Park Improvement Association, 18 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 185 , 335 A.2d 851 (1975).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6363034. Public record. Not legal advice.