Nesbit v. Riesenman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Kephart,
Appellant’s major question is that this court did not possess the power under the Constitution and the law to announce the rule in Ladner v. Siegel, 293 Pa. 306, that the “intended use [of a building as a public garage in a residential district] is a nuisance per se;......, and to permit experiments in separate instances to determine the extent of the harm suffered will lead to endless disputes”; and that the application of the rule violates the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution in that it deprives defendants of their property without due process of law…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- West v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Yu Cong Eng v. TrinidadSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Pennsylvania Co. v. Sun Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Sparhawk v. Union Passenger Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
- American Railway Express Co. v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1927
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Perrin's App. Bd. of Adjustment's App.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Commonwealth v. LaddSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- White v. Old York Road Country ClubSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Todd v. SabloskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Peirce v. KelnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.