Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority v. Cleban

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1970No. Appeal, No. 215Published

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinion by

Hoffman, J.:

Judge Cbrcone has written his usual careful and exhaustive opinion. I agree with him, but I would like to add a few words as to the inapplicability of Section 611.

Section 611 of the Eminent Domain Code provides, in relevant part, as follows: “The condemnee shall not be entitled to compensation for delay in payment during the period he remains in possession after the condemnation, nor durvng such period shall a condemnor he entitled to rent or other charges for use and occu*279pancy of the condemned property by the condemnee.” Act of June 22, 1964, P. L. 84, Art.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rednor & Kline, Inc. v. Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  2. Profit-Sharing Blue Stamp Co. v. Urban Redevelopment AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  3. Pattison v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  4. Redevelopment Agency v. Norwalk Aluminum Foundry CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
  5. Ames v. Wilmington Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Delaware · 1967

1 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