Legal Opinion

Taylor v. Urban Redevelopment Authority

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 23, 1965No. Appeals, Nos. 288 and 289PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Musmanno,

The lower court, in an eminent domain condemnation case, ordered a new trial because the verdict was inadequate, due, it asserted, to certain trial errors. The plaintiffs were owners of certain property in Pittsburgh, condemned by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh.*

In his charge to the jury the trial judge said: “By the same token, the obligation upon the attorneys for the defendant is most heavy because we are doing business here with what in the background I come from is a large amount of money” (Emphasis supplied.)

The reference to the judge’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Narciso v. Mauch Chunk TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  2. Ward v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  3. Sullivan v. Allegheny CountySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  4. Knight v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Downey v. WestonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  2. Stempel v. Bucks County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1975

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

Powered by the Exa API