Legal Opinion
In Re Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Authority
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 27, 2006No. 15 WAP 2004PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*435 OPINION
Chief Justice CAPPY.2
The issue presented in this matter is whether the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority (“the URA”) violated the free expression guarantees of the United States or Pennsylvania Constitutions when, as a part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan involving dozens of properties, it exercised eminent domain to take a theater showing adult-content movies. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the URA’s action did not run afoul of either free expression clauses and thus affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.
The property at issue in this litigation (“the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Texas v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- First Nat. Bank of Boston v. BellottiSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Batts, Q., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Southwestern Energy Production Co. v. Forest Resources, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- DePaul v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Commonwealth v. Knox, J., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.