dismissing as not ripe a claim that an ordinance that regulated the business of anthracite strip mining was unauthorized and preempted on the grounds that no attempt had been made to apply the ordinance against the plaintiffs mining operations
How later courts described this case
- dismissing as not ripe a claim that an ordinance that regulated the business of anthracite strip mining was unauthorized and preempted on the grounds that no attempt had been made to apply the ordinance against the plaintiffs mining operations
- dismissing as not ripe a constitutional challenge to an ordinance that had not been applied against the plaintiffs strip mining operation
- “The statutory procedure need not be followed only if it is inadequate to the task of resolving plaintiffs’ objections or its pursuit -will cause them irreparable harm”
- “The statutory procedure need not be followed only if is inadequate to the task of resolving plaintiffs’ objections or its pursuit will cause them irreparable harm”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen :
I agree that the instant action was instituted prematurely and that, in the absence of imminent harm, the jurisdiction of equity cannot presently be invoked. However, I am not convinced that equity will not have jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance involved in the foreseeable future. I, therefore, concur in the result reached in the majority opinion.
Whether or not a county has the legal right to legislate in the field of anthracite strip-mining under the guise of zoning regulations is an involved legal question. Admittedly, it can and should be resolved generally within the procedural framework provided by the zoning statutes and pertinent ordinances. But it is reasonably possible that this remedy will be totally inadequate in the present situation.
To litigate finally the important pre-emption question presented through the available statutory process may take months or years. In the meantime, if the county is permitted to enforce the ordinance without restraint, rank injustice and substantial harm would *454 necessarily follow. Businesses would be seriously interrupted, and many undoubtedly lost. Tbe unfairness of this is patently clear, in view of the fact that it may eventually be determined that the county does not have the power to legislate in the field involved. While the present ordinance does provide that an appeal from an order of the zoning board shall automatically stay all proceedings, it further provides that such will not be the case if the zoning officer certifies that in Ms opinion the stay will cause irreparable harm to life or property. Thus, on the mere certification of the zoning officer and without any judicial determination of the facts, the ordinance can immediately be enforced even though a meritorious appeal is then pending.
WTiile the writer of this opinion is in favor of strict regulations in the field of strip-mining, I cannot agree that the plaintiffs are precluded from seeking equitable relief regardless of the existing circumstances.
Mr. Chief Justice Bell and Mr. Justice Roberts join in this concurring and dissenting opinion.