APPEAL of HAMMAN et al., 78 Pa. Commw. 148 (1983)

466 A.2d 1149

In Re: Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Dauphin etc. Jack E. Hamman and Mary Hamman and Clifford Bailey, Jr., Appellants.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.Argued September 14, 1983
October 28, 1983.

Argued September 14, 1983, before Judges ROGERS, MacPHAIL and BARRY, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 2021 C.D. 1982, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County in cases of In Re: Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Dauphin of certain parcels of real estate in Middletown Borough, Pa., in connection with Paul T. Leicht Urban Renewal Project, Project No. R-664 Acquisition Parcel Nos. M-3-33, M-3-34, M-3-35

Page 149

and M-3-36, No. 795 S Term, 1981, and In Re: Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Dauphin of certain parcels of real estate in Middletown Borough, Pa., in connection with Paul T. Leicht Urban Renewal Project, Project No. R-664 Acquisition Parcel No. M-3-37, No. 796 S Term, 1981.

Declarations of taking filed by Redevelopment Authority of Dauphin County in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. Preliminary objections filed. Preliminary objections dismissed. Petitions to file additional preliminary objections filed. Petitions denied. MORGAN, J. Condemnees appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

Lee C. Swartz, with him Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Hepford, Swartz, Menaker Wilt, for appellants.

Robert D. Hanson, with him Richard C. Ruben, Hanson and Ruben, for appellees.

PER CURIAM MEMORANDUM OPINION, October 28, 1983:

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County on the opinion of Judge WARREN G. MORGAN,[1] In Re: Condemnation by The Redevelopment Authority of the County of Dauphin, In Connection with the Paul J. Leicht Urban Renewal Project, ___ Pa. D. C.3rd ___ (19__).

PER CURIAM ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of October, 1983, the order of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas dated July 19, 1982, in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.

[1] We note that the date of the filing of additional preliminary objections was May 20, 1982, not May 20, 1981, as Judge MORGAN’s opinion records.

Page 150

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

COMMONWEALTH v. ALEXANDER, 243 A.3d 177 (2020)

243 A.3d 177 (2020) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Keith ALEXANDER, Appellant. No. 30 EAP…

8 months ago

BODAN v. FICKETT, 24 Pa. D. & C. 3d 115 (1982)

24 Pa. D. & C. 3d 115 (1982) Bodan v. Fickett No. 2726 Civil 1981.Common…

2 years ago

IRWIN v. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 1 Pa. 349 (1845)

Irwin v. Bank of the United States, 1 Pa. 349 (1845) Sept. 1845 · Supreme Court of…

5 years ago

DURST v. MILROY GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC., 52 A.3d 357 (2012)

52 A.3d 357 (2012) Maureen DURST and Scott Durst, Appellants v. MILROY GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC.…

7 years ago

COMMONWEALTH v. SISTRUNK, 460 Pa. 655 (1975)

334 A.2d 280 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Edward SISTRUNK a/k/a Edward Brooks, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of…

9 years ago

McINTYRE ET AL. v. POPE ET AL., 326 Pa. 172 (1937)

191 A. 607 McIntyre et al., Appellants, v. Pope et al.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.March 25,…

9 years ago