Court Opinion

ID: 9634502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:15:10.540426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:50.858131
License: Public Domain

EAGEN, Chief justice,
dissenting.
While I still persist in my view that the Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction is not subject to municipal zoning ordinances and regulations,* City of Pittsburgh v. Commonwealth, 468 Pa. 174, 187, 360 A.2d 607, 614 (1976) (Eagen, J. (now Chief Justice) dissenting, joined by Jones, C. J. and Nix, J.), a majority of this Court has ruled otherwise and, in the interest of finality, I feel constrained to accept that ruling for the purposes of this appeal.
Further, while I agree that the proceeding at law must be utilized to challenge the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance, I would urge that, given the circumstances of this dispute, resolution of the equity action be delayed until the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance is determined.
NIX, J., joins this opinion.

 See 15 Duquesne Law Review 721 and 50 Temple Law Quarterly 905.