# In Re Petition of Dolington Land Group

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 30, 2003 · 576 Pa. 519

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649074

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re PETITION OF DOLINGTON LAND GROUP and Toll Bros., Inc. From the Decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Makefield Township, Appeal of Dolington Land Group and Toll Bros., Inc. Mary Jane and Calvin Larson, Frances Bielski, Carol Stuckley, Otto Schneider and Robert Mutschler Larson, Appellees/Intervenors
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 30, 2003
- **Citations:** 576 Pa. 519; 839 A.2d 1021; 2003 Pa. LEXIS 2602; 2003 WL 23095724
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eakin
- **Judges:** Gappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Lamb
- **Cited by:** 21 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/9649074

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the zoning board, as factfinder, is the sole judge of credibility with the power to resolve conflicts in the testimony and to reject even uncontradicted testimony that it finds to be lacking in credibility
- noting the Zoning Board is the sole judge of credibility with power to resolve conflicts in testimony and to reject even uncontradicted testimony that it finds to be lacking in credibility
- observing that Section 916.1(h) requires broadened perspective concerning availability of land uses under challenged zoning provisions and multimunicipal comprehensive plan

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION
Justice EAKIN.
Allowance of appeal was granted to determine the application of Surrick v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Upper Providence, 476 Pa. 182 , 382 A.2d 105 (1977), to the validity of a multi-municipal zoning ordinance. There being insufficient facts of record to do so, the Majority saves the issue for another day, making the lengthy discussion on this issue merely advisory in nature. As such, I would affirm the Commonwealth Court without opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649074. Public record. Not legal advice.