Legal Opinion
Atkins v. Urban Redevelopment Authority
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 30, 1980No. 64 and 65PublishedCited by 122 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LARSEN, Justice.
The Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh (URA) is, and was at the time of the events precipitating this appeal, the owner of numerous properties in the City of Pittsburgh slated for urban redevelopment. URA entered into a contractual relationship with the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh (HACP) wherein HACP agreed to provide many and varied services with respect to URA’s
*348properties.1 The contract makes it quite clear that URA was to have no active role in the supervision, operation and *349maintenance of its properties, and that HACP would assume all…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Stewart v. ChernickySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Socha v. MetzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Bell v. Koppers Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Brletich v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Engle v. ReiderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by122 opinions
- Carrender v. FittererSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Moure v. RaeuchleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Birth Center v. St. Paul Companies, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Darlington v. General ElectricSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
117 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.