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.

TOWNSHIP HEIDELBERG v. C & H DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (05/19/80)

decided: May 19, 1980.

TOWNSHIP OF HEIDELBERG
v.
C & H DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. AND TITAN HOMES, INC. C & H DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County in case of Township of Heidelberg v. C & H Development Company, Inc., No. 17, September Term, 1974.

COUNSEL

B. Ryland Wiggs, for appellant.

Charles W. Stopp, Steckel and Stopp, for appellee.

Judges Mencer, Rogers and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 51 Pa. Commw. Page 419]

In November of 1974, the Township of Heidelberg (Township) filed a complaint in equity against C & H Development Company, Inc. (Appellant) seeking to enjoin Appellant from developing certain lots on its real estate located in the Township. The Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County entered a temporary injunction and fixed a date for a hearing to determine whether the injunction should be made permanent. Prior to the date fixed for a hearing the parties petitioned the court for an "agreed order" which continued the temporary injunction.

In 1976 the Township filed a petition for a contempt citation against Appellant alleging that Appellant was violating the terms of the temporary injunction. After a hearing, that petition was denied. On October 4 of 1976, the parties filed a stipulation of counsel pursuant to which the court entered an order, the language of which is the subject of the present

[ 51 Pa. Commw. Page 420]

    appeal. The stipulation and order continued the temporary injunction with some modification and then provided as follows:

3. The parties agree that the parties hereto, or any other parties are not limited or prejudiced as to seeking such further judicial relief as the parties may agree or as the parties may initiate by proper application to the court.

The Complaint in Equity, and the within stipulation and the parties hereto, shall continue to be subject to the jurisdiction and authority of the court. (Emphasis added.)

In January of 1978, Appellant obtained a rule to show cause why it should not be permitted to file a responsive pleading to the Township's complaint. On April 19, 1978, that rule was denied by the trial court. No appeal was taken from that order.

In May of 1978, Appellant filed a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction embodied in the stipulation and order of October 4, 1976 and again asked to be allowed to file a responsive pleading to the Township's complaint. After a hearing, that motion was likewise ...


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.