Plaintiff's appeal was moot since remand hearing was the proper forum for plaintiff to challenge the proposed settlement based on alleged negative environmental impact. 133 CA 173.
Subsec. (o):
Cited. 220 C. 61; 222 C. 374; 224 C. 823; 225 C. 1; Id., 691; Id., 731; 228 C. 498. Requirement of certification by Appellate Court held applicable to affordable housing land use appeals. 245 C. 257. Failure to make service of process on clerk of the municipality is fatal jurisdictional flaw not remedied by savings clause. 257 C. 604.
Cited. 25 CA 572; 35 CA 646; judgment reversed, see 235 C. 448.
Subsec. (q):
Plaintiff's failure to serve the borough clerk was not a technical defect in form but a substantive defect in service that could not be cured by the savings provision of Subsec.; it is the duty of plaintiff rather than the marshal to identify who must be served. 285 C. 240.
Subsec. (r):
Legislature specifically intended the limitation period to apply only to challenges of failures of notice postdating January 1, 1999, as expressed in P.A. 00-84. 98 CA 213. Subsec. prohibits an appeal made more than 1 year from an action of the commission claimed to have been made without proper notice. 120 CA 50. One year appeal period is triggered only when the commission itself, not defendant applicants, fails to comply with notice requirement. 165 CA 488.
(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)
(Return to
List of Chapters)
(Return to
List of Titles)