Condemnation by the Commonwealth v. Sluciak

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Condemnation by the Commonwealth v. Sluciak

741 A.2d 725, 559 Pa. 532, 1999 Pa. LEXIS 3723

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 16, 1999

DocketPetition No. 282 W.D. Allocatur Docket 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 741 A.2d 725 (Condemnation by the Commonwealth v. Sluciak) 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

Condemnation by the Commonwealth v. Sluciak, 741 A.2d 725, 559 Pa. 532, 1999 Pa. LEXIS 3723 (Pa. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 16 th day of December, 1999, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following issues as framed by PennDOT:

[533]*533a. Is a condemnee precluded from asserting damages for the taking of his entire property based on an alleged landlocking where he failed to file preliminary objections to the declaration of taking which clearly depicted a partial taking of the property with access to the remaining land via a long-existing driveway that he knew was considered by the condemnor in making its offer of damages?

b. Should an access way to property remaining after a partial de jure condemnation be considered in determining damages due to the taking where the condemnor never intended to landlock the condemnee’s remaining property and acquired the access way for the benefit of the remaining property after condemnation, but before access was ever terminated and before a final determination of damages for the taking?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 16 th day of December, 1999, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following issues as framed by PennDOT:

[533]*533a. Is a condemnee precluded from asserting damages for the taking of his entire property based on an alleged landlocking where he failed to file preliminary objections to the declaration of taking which clearly depicted a partial taking of the property with access to the remaining land via a long-existing driveway that he knew was considered by the condemnor in making its offer of damages?

b. Should an access way to property remaining after a partial de jure condemnation be considered in determining damages due to the taking where the condemnor never intended to landlock the condemnee’s remaining property and acquired the access way for the benefit of the remaining property after condemnation, but before access was ever terminated and before a final determination of damages for the taking?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

741 A.2d 725, 559 Pa. 532, 1999 Pa. LEXIS 3723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/condemnation-by-the-commonwealth-v-sluciak-pa-1999.