Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PITTSBURGH APPEAL (04/14/52)

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


April 14, 1952

URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH APPEAL

Appeal, No. 117, March T., 1952, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1950, No. 1665, in the matter of Condemnation by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, etc. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Carl E. Glock orally argued the case and, with Frank W. Ittel, David McN. Olds, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Theodore L. Hazlett, Jr., Paul G. Perry, and Burgwin, Churchill, Ruffin & Hazlett, filed a brief for appellant.

John A. Metz, Jr., Gilbert E. Morcroft, T. Robert Brennan, Edwin F. Ellis, Emerson G. Hess, Jr. and James A. Wright, orally argued the case, and, with M. J. Arnd, James A. Danahey, J. Alfred Wilner, James Craig Kuhn, Jr., Louis Rosenfield, Ferdinand T. Weil, Andrew A. Weil, Weil, Vatz & Weil, Joseph F. Weis, John A. Metz, Sr., John E. Winner, Floyd V. Winner, J. Howard Brennan, Leonard M. Boehm, Emerson G. Hess, Sr., Hess & Hess, William L. Jacob, William L. Jacob, Jr., William H. Markus, Robert C. Riethmuller, Harland I. Casteel, J. Wray Connolly, Davis C. Burroughs, Jr., Moorhead & Knox, Drayton Heard, M. H. Hirschfield, Hamilton A. Robinson, Alex C. Grant, Clarence F. Covey, Markel & Markel, J. T. Keller, Harold Obernauer, Harry J. Benjamin, Shoemaker & Eynon, Harry Ravick, Ray C. Hough, Jr., Wilson Barker, Gustav M. Berg, Illario Tornese, Nick Tornese, William A. Blair, and Griggs, Moreland, Blair & Douglas filed briefs for various appellees.

Charles F. C. Arensberg orally argued the case, and with Thomas L. Wentling and Patterson, Crawford, Arensberg & Dunn, filed a brief for Public Parking Authority of Pittsburgh, amicus curiae.

Before Drew, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey and Musmanno, JJ.

[ 370 Pa. Page 250]

OPINION PER 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 ยง 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.

Disposition

Order affirmed at the appellant's costs.

19520414

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.