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.

BERNARD B. MARTIN v. ADAMS COUNTY AREA VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL AUTHORITY (12/28/73)

decided: December 28, 1973.

BERNARD B. MARTIN, THOMAS O. OYLER, SR., AND OLMER SPENCE, APPELLANT,
v.
ADAMS COUNTY AREA VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL AUTHORITY, BERMUDIAN SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT, CONEWAGO VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, FAIRFIELD AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, GETTYSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, LITTLESTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT AND UPPER ADAMS SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Adams Court in case of Bernard B. Martin, Thomas O. Oyler, Sr., and Olmer Spence, citizens, residents and taxpayers of the County of Adams, Pennsylvania, in their own right and on behalf of all other taxpayers of the County of Adams, Pennsylvania, v. Adams County Area Vocational-Technical School Authority, Bermudian Springs School District, Conewago Valley School District, Fairfield Area School District, Gettysburg Area School District, Littlestown School District and Upper Adams School District, No. 5 May Term, 1973.

COUNSEL

Stephen E. Patterson, with him Ullman & Painter, for appellants.

Eugene R. Hartman, for appellees.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. President Judge Bowman did not participate. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson. Judges Crumlish and Mencer concur in the result only.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 293]

On April 23, 1973, plaintiffs-appellants brought this action in equity to enjoin defendants-appellees from proceeding with the construction of an area vocational-technical school on a 24.775 acre tract of land purchased by appellees from Adams County for a purchase price of $100,000,00. The estimated project cost was alleged to be $3,620.000.

We summarize the reasons alleged by appellants in the complaint, as amended, to support their claim that the court should exercise its extraordinary powers to perpetually enjoin appellees from using the site they selected:

(1) No feasibility study has been made, including a traffic study;

(2) Other and more desirable land is available at a lesser price;

[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 294]

(3) Other available sites are more accessible;

(4) Cost of sewerage facilities and services would be less ...


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.