Legal Opinion · Dissent

Guttha v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 11, 2005Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Senior Judge KELLEY.

I respectfully dissent.

In support of its determination that the appointment of a board of viewers on Gut-tha’s claim for general condemnation damages was properly quashed, the Majority cites to Appeal of Scholl, 292 Pa. 262, 141 A. 44 (1928), Amoco Oil Company v. Department of Transportation, 157 Pa. Cmwlth. 222, 629 A.2d 259 (1993) and Appeal of Hawk Sales Company, Inc., 38 Pa.Cmwlth. 535, 394 A.2d 657 (1978). However, in each of these cases, the leases in question were not considered by the trial court in a preliminary manner as a preliminary…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Powell AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  2. Scholl's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. In re Condemnation by the CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. In re Condemnation by the CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. Amoco Oil Co. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API