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.

CITY PITTSBURGH v. CLARA HAFFNER ET AL. (01/30/84)

decided: January 30, 1984.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, APPELLANT
v.
CLARA HAFFNER ET AL., APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of Clara Haffner, Betty Rosenfield, Pittsburgh National Bank, Trustee for Betty Rosenfield, William Perer and Howard Perer v. City of Pittsburgh, No. G.D. 78-27758.

COUNSEL

Grace S. Harris, Assistant City Solicitor, with her D. R. Pellegrini, City Solicitor, for appellant.

Samuel P. Kamin, for appellees.

Judges Williams, Jr., Barry and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.

Author: Barry

[ 80 Pa. Commw. Page 54]

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dismissing preliminary objections filed by appellant, the City of Pittsburgh (City) to a petition for appointment of viewers (Petition). Appellees, Clara Haffner, Betty Rosenfield, Pittsburgh National Bank, Trustee for Betty Rosenfield, William Perer and Howard Perer filed this Petition on November 22, 1978, seeking damages because of an alleged de facto taking by the City.

The trial court on November 22, 1978, appointed a Board of View (Board) under Section 502 of the Eminent Domain Code (Code).*fn1 On January 18, 1979, the City was served and received a copy of the Petition. On that same day, an affidavit of service and acceptance of service by the City were filed.

On July 11, 1979, approximately 174 days after the affidavit of service and the acceptance of service by the City were filed, the City filed preliminary objections. Nine days later the appellees filed a petition to quash the City's preliminary objections.

On March 11, 1982, the Court ordered a hearing on appellees' petition to quash. Not long thereafter, the Deputy Director of the City's Department of Parks

[ 80 Pa. Commw. Page 55]

    and Recreation, filed an affidavit indicating that a non-public body was responsible for the conduct attributed to the City in the appellees' Petition.

On July 15, 1982, the Court dismissed the appellants' preliminary objections as having been untimely filed under the provisions of Section 504 of the Code. This appeal is from that order.*fn2

The City argues that it did not receive due notice of the appointment of the Board as required by the Code. ...


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.