Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

HADDINGTON LEADERSHIP ORGANIZATION v. SHERMAN (04/05/73)

decided: April 5, 1973.

HADDINGTON LEADERSHIP ORGANIZATION, INC., ET AL.
v.
SHERMAN



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of the County of Philadelphia, in case of Haddington Leadership Organization, Inc., and James N. Monk v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia and F. Bruce Baldwin, Jr., Chairman and Francis J. Meyers, Executive Director, and James Sherman, Intervenor, No. 2180 October Term, 1970.

COUNSEL

Paul Shalita, with him Lawrence Goldberg and Goldberg & Frankel, for appellant.

A. Clifford Pearlman, with him Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, for appellees.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 8 Pa. Commw. Page 310]

The Haddington Leadership Organization, Inc. (Haddington), is the Project Area Committee acting as the representative of the local citizens relative to what is known as the Haddington Urban Renewal Area. Haddington was formed in accord with applicable United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

[ 8 Pa. Commw. Page 311]

(HUD) regulations. Haddington, together with a James N. Monk who resides at 5325 Vine Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. This complaint named as defendants the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia (Redevelopment Authority) and F. Bruce Baldwin, Jr., as Chairman, and Francis J. Meyers as Executive Director, of the Redevelopment Authority.

Haddington's complaint asserted that the City Council for the City of Philadelphia had "adopted" certain ordinances in connection with an urban renewal plan for the Haddington Urban Renewal Area Unit I; also, that these ordinances provided that 5311-5319 Vine Street be developed as a public parking area. The complaint contained allegations that the buildings located at 5311-5319 Vine Street had been condemned by the Redevelopment Authority but were still occupied by the condemnee, James Sherman (Sherman), as a garage and gas station which "created unsightly and obstructive conditions in Haddington I."

Haddington's complaint further alleged that, although the Redevelopment Authority had acquired title to 5311-5319 Vine Street fourteen months previously, it had not instituted eviction proceedings against Sherman. The complaint's prayer for equitable relief was that (1) an injunction issue, preliminary until hearing and perpetual thereafter, restraining the defendants from permitting Sherman's Garage and Gas Station to continue to occupy 5311-5319 Vine Street and (2) defendants be commanded to immediately commence eviction proceedings against the occupant of 5311-5319 Vine Street and to promptly carry out the development of that property in accord with the applicable Urban Renewal Plan.

Sherman filed a petition for leave to intervene as a party defendant and, after being granted the right to

[ 8 Pa. Commw. Page 312]

    intervene, he filed preliminary objections to the complaint. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections and Sherman ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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