Legal Opinion

Edgewood Borough Petition

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 28, 1935No. Appeal, 153PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Upon the petition referred to in the title of this case, the court below granted a rule “to show cause why the [appointment of the viewers] . . . should not be vacated.” To this an answer was filed by the borough, testimony was taken, and, after argument thereon, the rule was discharged. From that order, without further proceedings in the cause, the present appeal is being prosecuted. It must be quashed, since the order appealed from is interlocutory. As, however, the question attempted to be raised now, must be determined at a later stage of the proceedings, we deem it wise to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Scranton Gas & Water Co. v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re Condemnation Proceeding by the Township of Lower MacUngieCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  2. Dames v. Pottstown BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  3. Marple Township v. Marple Newtown School DistrictCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Dames v. Pottstown BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  5. East Deer Township School Dist. v. Van Dyke, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1937

2 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