Commonwealth v. Difurio
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
*282Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Doyle.-
I must respectfully dissent to the majority opinion for several reasons, but principally on the grounds that the result reached is contrary to the basic principle that in order to have a defacto taking there must be exceptional circumstances which substantially deprive the condemnee of the use and enjoyment of his property, Department of Transportation v. Lawton, 50 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 144, 412 A.2d 214 (1980), and, that the result creates dissimilar standards for the condemnation of the underlying fee and the condemnation of a leasehold interest. The…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Conroy-Prugh Glass Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Pittsburgh Outdoor Advertising Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Iron City Automobile Co. v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Holmes Protection of Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Port AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Scholl's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.