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.

MILFORD-TRUMBAUERSVILLE AREA SEWER AUTHORITY v. APPROXIMATELY 0.753 ACRES LAND KNOWN TO BE PROPERTY JOHN A. M. MCCARTHY (06/01/76)

decided: June 1, 1976.

MILFORD-TRUMBAUERSVILLE AREA SEWER AUTHORITY
v.
APPROXIMATELY 0.753 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN TO BE THE PROPERTY OF JOHN A. M. MCCARTHY, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in case of Milford-Trumbauersville Area Sewer Authority v. Approximately 0.753 Acres of Land Known to be Property of John A. M. McCarthy, No. 75-3526-08-4.

COUNSEL

John A. M. McCarthy, appellant, for himself.

Victor S. Jaczun, with him Jaczun & Grabowski, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Kramer did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Crumlish

[ 25 Pa. Commw. Page 14]

Presently before us is the appeal of John A. M. McCarthy (Condemnee). Condemnee asks us to reverse an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County which dismissed his preliminary objections to a declaration of taking filed by the Milford Trumbauersville Area Sewer Authority (Condemnor). For the reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm.

Condemnee frames four issues for our resolution:

1. Can a court of common pleas overrule preliminary objections challenging adequacy and sufficiency of the bond of a condemnor without taking testimony?

2. Should a declaration of taking comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure?

3. Must a sewer authority's declaration of taking reveal how it came into existence, the date and source of its charter and where it is recorded?

4. Should a drawing of a proposed sewer line show a view of its elevation as well as a flat plan?

[ 25 Pa. Commw. Page 15]

Condemnee's initial argument is that the court below improperly dismissed his objection to the sufficiency of bond without allowing Condemnee to offer testimony. We have carefully examined the record and conclude that the ...


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.