Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh Appeal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh Appeal

87 A.2d 787, 370 Pa. 248, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 336

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 14, 1952

DocketAppeal, No. 117

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 87 A.2d 787 (Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh Appeal) 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

Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh Appeal, 87 A.2d 787, 370 Pa. 248, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 336 (Pa. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

The Viewers’ Report involved in this appeal complies with the pertinent legal requirements. The appellant’s exceptions were, therefore, properly dismissed.

The findings and conclusions of the Viewers, which Section 9 of the Act of June 23, 1911, P. L. 1123, 16 PS §3118, contemplates, were inherently essential parts of the Schedule of Awards contained in the Report. Nothing further in such regard was either necessary or appropriate. The remaining matters which the appellant mistakenly sought by its exceptions to bring up for decision are not presently justiciable. They relate to the elements of property involved in various of the takings covered by the condemnation and to the relevant measure of damages. Such questions should rightly be raised at the trial of an appeal from a particular award where they can then be competently passed upon judicially. The procedure which the appellant has endeavored to pursue is without legal justification whatsoever; if followed, it could lead only to confusion and interminable delay in the adjudication of the rights of the respective parties in interest.

Order affirmed at the appellant’s costs.

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

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

The Viewers’ Report involved in this appeal complies with the pertinent legal requirements. The appellant’s exceptions were, therefore, properly dismissed.

The findings and conclusions of the Viewers, which Section 9 of the Act of June 23, 1911, P. L. 1123, 16 PS §3118, contemplates, were inherently essential parts of the Schedule of Awards contained in the Report. Nothing further in such regard was either necessary or appropriate. The remaining matters which the appellant mistakenly sought by its exceptions to bring up for decision are not presently justiciable. They relate to the elements of property involved in various of the takings covered by the condemnation and to the relevant measure of damages. Such questions should rightly be raised at the trial of an appeal from a particular award where they can then be competently passed upon judicially. The procedure which the appellant has endeavored to pursue is without legal justification whatsoever; if followed, it could lead only to confusion and interminable delay in the adjudication of the rights of the respective parties in interest.

Order affirmed at the appellant’s costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.2d 787, 370 Pa. 248, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/urban-redevelopment-authority-of-pittsburgh-appeal-pa-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack