Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Ball

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 16, 1923No. Appeal, No. 180PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Appellee instituted mandamus proceedings against the commissioners of Susquehanna County to compel the maintenance, repair and improvement of parts of an abandoned turnpike known as the Lackawanna Trail, largely used for the accommodation of the traveling public. The mandamus was resisted for the following reasons: (a) it did not appear the abandoned turnpike had been sufficiently identified and distinguished from other roads in the county, so that claims paid on account *304of it might be fully protected under the law; (b) by the Act of 1907, the legislature did not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pearce v. LangfitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
  2. Sandy Lake Borough v. Sandy Lake & Stoneboro Gas Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  3. Dyer v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Emert v. Larami Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  2. Willoughby v. GrimSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Fletcher Savings & Trust Co. v. American State BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1925
  4. SHELBY NAT'L. BK., ADM. v. MillerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1970
  5. State v. McMilliamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

30 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