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.

HARRY A. COHEN AND EVA COHEN v. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY PHILADELPHIA (02/14/74)

decided: February 14, 1974.

HARRY A. COHEN AND EVA COHEN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Harry A. Cohen and Eva Cohen v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia, No. 198 September Term, 1964.

COUNSEL

James L. Price, with him Steinberg, Greenstein, Richman & Price, for appellants.

Francis J. Moran, with him James D. Crawford and Richard D. Malmed, for appellee.

Judges Kramer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 126]

Harry A. and Eva Cohen (appellants) were owners of the premises at 104 N. 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, condemned by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia (Authority) for the Independence Mall Redevelopment project, and Harry A. Cohen operated a business on the property. The Declaration of Taking was filed in the Court of Common Pleas on September 23, 1964 pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code, Act of June 22, 1964, Special Sess., P.L. 84, as amended, 26 P.S. ยงยง 1-101 et seq. A Board of View was subsequently appointed and it recommended an award of $36,500, which was appealed to the court below, where a jury awarded a $32,000 verdict for the appellants. The lower court denied the appellant's motion for a new trial and judgment was entered on the verdict.

The appellants raise several questions in support of their contention that a new trial should be granted:

(a) the lower court erred in excluding evidence concerning the value of equipment and fixtures required to be removed;

(b) that the lower court erred in excluding evidence concerning the loss arising from the dislocation of the business;

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 127]

(c) that the lower court erred in excluding evidence concerning the loss incurred from the now worthless advertising materials which bore the address of the condemned property;

(d) that the judge improperly commented to the jury in his charge that the condemnee did not consider the essential factor of depreciation in his testimony; and

(e) that the counsel for the Authority in his address to the jury commented on the appellants' failure to produce an expert witness and suggested ...


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.