Legal Opinion

Stoutenburgh v. Upper Moreland-Hatboro Joint Sewer Authority

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 24, 1960No. Appeal, No. 317PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Woodside, J.,

The parties here seek an answer to a simple question of law: Can a sewer authority, assessing the cost of constructing a sanitary sewer according to the front foot rule, assess only that part of the frontage of a lot which abuts its sewer pipe, or can it assess the entire frontage? We agree with the court below that it can assess only that portion of the frontage which abuts the sewer.

*598The plaintiffs, Robert S. Stoutenburgh and wife, own a lot with a frontage of 75 feet on Montgomery Avenue in Hatboro. The defendant, Upper Moreland-Hatboro Joint Sewer Authority, laid a…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bell AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  2. Philadelphia Manufacturers Mutual Fire Insurance v. RoseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  3. Guerra v. GALATICSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  4. Upper Moreland-Hatboro Joint Sewer Authority v. PearsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  5. Gerety EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Johnson EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  2. Whitemarsh Township Authority v. Elwert, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1961
  3. Carlisle Suburban Authority v. Frey, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1976
  4. Hartin v. Abington Township, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1960
  5. Johnson EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API