You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Wvch Communications, Inc., Moffitt (Thomas H., Alice E.) v. Upper Providence Township, Upper Providence Township Zoning Hearing Board, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceutical, Inc., Sterling Group, Tiefenthaler (Sue) Wvch Communications, Inc., Moffitt (Thomas H., Alice E.) v. Kalil (Walter), Hess (Clay), Kalil Printing, Inc., School Board of Spring-Ford School

Citation: 27 F.3d 561Docket: 93-1711

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; May 4, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves WVCH Communications, Inc. and Thomas H. Moffitt against Upper Providence Township, the Upper Providence Township Zoning Hearing Board, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceutical, Inc., Sterling Group, and others, including Kalil and the Spring-Ford School Board. The appeal was heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, resulting in an affirmation of the lower court's decision by Judge Buckwalter from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case number is 93-1711 and 93-1712, and the ruling was issued on May 4, 1994. The court upheld the lower court's findings without providing additional commentary on the substantive issues, indicating that the original decision was sound and did not warrant reversal.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Lower Court Decision

Application: The appellate court upheld the decision of the lower court, indicating agreement with the original findings and judgment.

Reasoning: The appeal was heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, resulting in an affirmation of the lower court's decision by Judge Buckwalter from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Judicial Review Standard

Application: The appellate court found no need to provide additional commentary, suggesting that the lower court's decision met the necessary legal standards and did not require further examination.

Reasoning: The court upheld the lower court's findings without providing additional commentary on the substantive issues, indicating that the original decision was sound and did not warrant reversal.