Szabo v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Szabo v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

172 A.3d 1109

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 12, 2017·No. 184 WAL 2017 (Granted)·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) By failing to file preliminary objections pursuant to section 306 of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa.C.S. § 306, did Respondents waive their right to assert ownership and seek additional just compensation for the condemnation of two parcels which were allegedly mistakenly depicted as belonging to two other legal entities in plans ■ attached to the declaration of taking?

(2) Did Petitioner’s alleged mistake in the plans attached to a declaration of taking, constitute the failure to adequately establish the- extent or effect of the taking, thereby excusing Respondents from filing preliminary objections under section 306 of the Eminent Domain Code. See Pennsylvania Dep’t Gen. Seros., 714 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Commw. 1998) and Pennsylvania Dep’t Trans, v. Greenfield Twp. Prop. Owners, 136 Pa.Cmwlth. 113, 682 ' A.2d 41 (1990)?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) By failing to file preliminary objections pursuant to section 306 of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa.C.S. § 306, did Respondents waive their right to assert ownership and seek additional just compensation for the condemnation of two parcels which were allegedly mistakenly depicted as belonging to two other legal entities in plans ■ attached to the declaration of taking?

(2) Did Petitioner’s alleged mistake in the plans attached to a declaration of taking, constitute the failure to adequately establish the- extent or effect of the taking, thereby excusing Respondents from filing preliminary objections under section 306 of the Eminent Domain Code. See Pennsylvania Dep’t Gen. Seros., 714 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Commw. 1998) and Pennsylvania Dep’t Trans, v. Greenfield Twp. Prop. Owners, 136 Pa.Cmwlth. 113, 682 ' A.2d 41 (1990)?

Szabo v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 172 A.3d 1109 (Pa. 2017).

Pincite

172 A.3d 1109 (Szabo v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related