Allen v. Birmingham Township

244 A.2d 661, 430 Pa. 595, 1968 Pa. LEXIS 749
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedAugust 6, 1968
DocketAppeal, 251
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 244 A.2d 661 (Allen v. Birmingham Township) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allen v. Birmingham Township, 244 A.2d 661, 430 Pa. 595, 1968 Pa. LEXIS 749 (Pa. 1968).

Opinion

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an action in equity filed by appellants, residents of Birmingham Township, Delaware County, seeking to (1) enjoin appellee, James Julian, Inc., owner of a tract of land in said township from removing earth from said land as an improper commercial enterprise within an area zoned for solely residential purposes, and (2) void a contract negotiated between James Julian, Inc. and appellee, Birmingham Township, which contract permitted the enterprise complained of by appellants.

James Julian, Inc. is a general contractor engaged in the construction of a federal highway known as Interstate 95. The earth which Julian was removing from its tract in Birmingham Township was being used as “fill” in the construction of this highway.

The contract between James Julian, Inc. and the township allows this excavation to continue for two years commencing August, 1966. However, the president of James Julian, Inc. testified that the work would only continue until June or July, 1967, thereby indicating that the full two years would not be necessary.

We have been informed that at the present time James Julian, Inc. has completed excavation of the subject land. Hence, since the alleged unlawful conduct *597 on the part of appellees lias ceased to exist, and since there remains nothing for this Court to enjoin, the issues involved in this appeal are now moot. Our action in refusing to review the merits of the present controversy should in no way he interpreted by the parties to be an approval or disapproval of the lower court’s failure to grant an injunction. Likewise, this should not be construed as a sanctioning or licensing of the alleged unlawful conduct on the part of appellee, James Julian, Inc.

The appeal is dismissed. Each party to bear own costs.

Mr. Justice Roberts concurs in the result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Russ, C. v. Herman Living, LLC
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2024
A.Y. Aina v. PBPP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
Com. v. McKeever, V.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2017
Burke, A., Aplt. v. Independence Blue Cross
103 A.3d 1267 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
Slomowitz, M. v. Kessler, S.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014
In Re Gross
382 A.2d 116 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
Sigal v. Manufacturers Light & Heat Co.
299 A.2d 646 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 A.2d 661, 430 Pa. 595, 1968 Pa. LEXIS 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-birmingham-township-pa-1968.