Sevich v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Sevich v. Commonwealth

252 A.2d 644, 434 Pa. 68, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 405

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 23, 1969

DocketAppeal, No. 210

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 252 A.2d 644 (Sevich v. Commonwealth) 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

Sevich v. Commonwealth, 252 A.2d 644, 434 Pa. 68, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 405 (Pa. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

Elizabeth Sevich is the owner of property in Mercer County, 15.194 acres of which was condemned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of constructing a portion of Interstate 80. A Board of View, appointed upon the request of the Commonwealth, fixed damages in the amount of 820,000. The condemnee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas and, after trial, the jury awarded damages in the amount of fl5,000. The condemnee then filed this appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict. We affirm.

Appellant, the verdict winner in the court below, alleges three trial errors in support of her appeal, but has failed to demonstrate how these purported errors have prejudiced her case. Under such circumstances, our decisions in Rankin v. McCurry, 402 Pa. 494, 166 A. 2d 536 (1961), and Granowitz v. Erie Redevelopment Authority, 432 Pa. 243, 247 A. 2d 623 (1968), are controlling.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Roberts concurs in the result.

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

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

Elizabeth Sevich is the owner of property in Mercer County, 15.194 acres of which was condemned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of constructing a portion of Interstate 80. A Board of View, appointed upon the request of the Commonwealth, fixed damages in the amount of 820,000. The condemnee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas and, after trial, the jury awarded damages in the amount of fl5,000. The condemnee then filed this appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict. We affirm.

Appellant, the verdict winner in the court below, alleges three trial errors in support of her appeal, but has failed to demonstrate how these purported errors have prejudiced her case. Under such circumstances, our decisions in Rankin v. McCurry, 402 Pa. 494, 166 A. 2d 536 (1961), and Granowitz v. Erie Redevelopment Authority, 432 Pa. 243, 247 A. 2d 623 (1968), are controlling.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Roberts concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.2d 644, 434 Pa. 68, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sevich-v-commonwealth-pa-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack