Legal Opinion

Bigham v. City of Pittsburgh

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 30, 1924No. Appeal, 127PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

Sawmill Kun is a natural water-course which flows through the City of Pittsburgh for a distance of about three and one-half miles and drains a considerable part of its territory. Many years ago it was adopted by the city as an open sewer: Shaughnessy v. Pittsburgh, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 609, 611; and has been used and maintained as such ever since. In its course through the City of Pittsburgh it was accustomed to flow within the lines of Wilmerding Street, as laid out (though not opened); but for the last four or five years, obstructions have been allowed to accumulate and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Blizzard v. Borough of DanvilleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
  2. Munn & Barton v. MayorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
  3. Siegfried v. South Bethlehem BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
  4. Owens v. City of LancasterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  5. Shaughnessy v. PittsburgSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ambler Borough v. ShepherdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  2. Yeager v. City of PittsburghSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API