Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Szabo, S. v. PennDOT, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 20, 2019No. 46 WAP 2017Published

1Concurrence

JUSTICE WECHT, Concurring

I agree that Stephen and Mary Szabo are entitled to an evidentiary hearing to clarify the property interests subject to the taking at issue in this case, in furtherance of their effort to determine the just compensation to which they are constitutionally entitled. 1 The plan attached to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's declaration of taking omitted any indication that PennDOT's planned road expansion implicated not only parcel 5, which the Szabos undisputedly owned, but also adjacent parcels 1 and 9, the ownership and boundaries of which are disputed.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In re RamseyCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. West Whiteland Associates v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. City of Pittsburgh v. GoldCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Millcreek Township v. N.E.A. Cross CompanyCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  5. Commonwealth v. Greenfield Township—Property OwnersCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

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

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

Powered by the Exa API