Court Opinion

ID: 9706991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:57:51.935596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:17.982296
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I strongly disagree with Jacobs v. Fetzer, 381 Pa. 262, 112 A. 2d 356 (see my dissenting Opinion, page 268), which holds that the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance cannot be determined in an action in equity. Moreover, I strongly disagree that the same presumption of constitutional validity that attends an Act of the Legislature is equally applicable to municipal ordinances, whether they be enacted by the council of a city, toAvn or borough, or by the commissioners or supervisors of a township. See my dissenting Opinion in Bilbar Const. Co. v. Easttown Twp. Bd. of A., 393 Pa. 62, 77, 84, 141 A. 2d 851. However, because I am an ardent disciple of stare decisis, I believe I must follow the aforesaid principles of laAV which the majority of this Court have adopted in several prior decisions. Because of these and other reasons, I concur instead of joining in the majority Opinion.