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.

JOSEPH DOMINO AND SAMUEL DISALVO v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/28/82)

decided: December 28, 1982.

JOSEPH DOMINO AND SAMUEL DISALVO, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL S. DISALVO, DECEASED
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of Joseph Domino and Samuel DiSalvo, Administrator of the Estate of Michael S. DiSalvo, Deceased v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation and Urban Redevelopment Authority, No. GD 78-22416.

COUNSEL

David Ward Murphy, Assistant Counsel, with him Jeffrey L. Giltenboth, Assistant Counsel, Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for appellant.

Louise Porac, with her Harry R. Ruprecht, King, Bowman, Hanna & Ruprecht, for appellees.

Marion E. Popiel, for Amicus Curiae, Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh.

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

Author: Rogers

[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 564]

The Commonwealth Department of Transportation (DOT) has appealed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County overruling its preliminary objections to the petition for the appointment of viewers of Joseph Domino and Samuel DeSalvo, Administrator of the Estate of Michael S. DiSalvo (landowners). The landowners alleged that three properties

[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 565]

    owned by them were de facto condemned by DOT in connection with a highway-bridge project.

The landowners additionally alleged that the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh (Authority) had de facto condemned their properties. The Authority also filed preliminary objections. After an evidentiary hearing addressed to both sets of preliminary objections, the trial court, as noted, overruled DOT's objections; but it sustained those of the Authority and dismissed the petition for viewers as to the Authority. DOT did not appeal from the action of the court sustaining the Authority's preliminary objections.

The first and principal question stated by DOT is that of whether the court below erred in finding DOT to have effected a de facto condemnation of the landowners' properties. This issue, and only this issue, was ably and thoroughly treated by Judge Scheib, the hearing judge, whose opinion we adopt in this aspect of the appeal. Joseph Domino and Samuel J. DiSalvo, Administrator v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation and Urban Redelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, D. & C.3d (1981).

DOT poses three additional questions. The first complains that the trial court erred in sustaining the Authority's preliminary objections. The order of the trial court sustaining the Authority's preliminary objections and dismissing the landowners' petition was a final judgment. Rawls v. Central Bucks Joint School Building Authority, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 491, 303 A.2d 863 (1973). Neither the landowners nor DOT appealed from that order; and it may not be challenged by DOT here. Further, DOT's notice of appeal names as the subject matter of the appeal the trial court's order dated ...


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.