Legal Opinion

In Matter Appointment of Viewers

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 13, 1931No. Appeal 145PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

As originally enacted, the Act of May 31,1911, P. L. 468, commonly known as the Sproul Act, made no provision for the widening of an existing state highway. It authorized the diversion or divergence of a part or portion of á state highway, where the safety or convenience of the public, or the expense of improvement, might warrant it, (Sec. 8), but the simple widening of a highway that required no deflection was not provided for. This oversight was supplied by the amendment to sections 8 and 16, of April 6, 1921, P, L. 107, which, however, is broad enough to include two…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Penn Builders, Inc. v. Blair CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  2. May v. the Co. of WestmorelandSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Hamer v. State Highway Commission of the MissouriSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
  2. Strong AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  3. Commonwealth v. Pardee Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. Jordan v. Clearfield CountySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  5. Eshleman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

3 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