Legal Opinion

Boring v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 9, 1969No. Appeal, 29PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Eagen,

This is an appeal by the Metropolitan Edison Company (hereinafter Condemnor) from the judgment entered in the court below upon a jury’s verdict awarding $25,000 in damages to Paul L. Boring and Mary M. Boring (hereinafter Condemnees) in an eminent domain action.

On November 22, 1965, the Condemnor condemned a right of way across the unimproved 43.46 acre tract of the Condemnees for the purpose of erecting thereon an electrical transmission line. The Condemnees’ land is located in close proximity to Pinchot State Park, a resort attracting large numbers of patrons to…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Glass v. FreemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  3. Beeruk EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  4. Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  5. Risbon v. CottomSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Matter of LarsenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. Tinicum Real Estate Holding Corp. v. Commonwealth, Department of TransportationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Stoner v. Metropolitan Edison Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Felix v. Baldwin-Whitehall School DistrictCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  5. Faith United Presbyterian Church v. Redevelopment AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1972

12 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