Private corporations that do not sell gas directly to the public for compensation are not public utilities and, therefore, are not permitted to exercise the powers of eminent domain.
Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 623 Pa. 564 (Pa 2013).
Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 637 Pa. 239 (Pa. 2016)
A jury verdict concerning fair market value of property subject to a de facto taking will be upheld as based on substantial evidence where the jury views the property and its valuation is within the range of expert appraisals during trial, and a landowner is properly awarded interest, delay damages and attorneys’ fees.
In re: DeFacto Condemnation and Taking of Lands of WBF Associates, L.P., 972 A.2d 576 (Pa. Commw. 2009).
A government entity cannot take property through eminent domain under the Urban Redevelopment Law for purely economic development unless there is evidence demonstrating it is blighted.
In re: Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County, 962 A.2d 1257 (Pa. Commw. 2008).
A municipal authority’s exercise of its eminent domain power was set aside when the land taken was in excess of that which was reasonably required to serve the public purpose.
In Re: Condemnation by the Beaver Falls Municipal Authority, 960 A.2d 933 (2008).
A municipality satisfies the security requirements of the Eminent Domain Code when the security is readily accessible and is sufficient to satisfy the condemnation damages.
York City Redevelopment Authority v. Ohio Blenders, Inc., 956 A.2d 1052 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
A Borough does not have the authority to take public land or property.
In re: Condemnation by the Borough of Hanover of Land and Interests in Land Owned by Hanover Public School District , 950 A.2d 373 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
An otherwise proper taking does not lose its public character merely because a redeveloper may profit from the taking.
In Re: Condemnation of Land for the South East Central Business District Redevelopment Area #1, 946 A.2d 1143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Where the Lemon test is implicated in condemnation proceedings because a religious entity is involved, courts must look at the principal purpose of the use and how and why the religious entity is involved. A condemnation will not fail simply because a religious entity is involved as the entanglement must be prohibitively excessive to warrant failure under the Lemon test.
In re 1839 North Eighth Street,
891 A.2d 820 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), app. granted, 903 A.2d 539 (Pa. 2006)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by: In re Condemnation Proceeding by the Redevelopment Auth. of Phila. (1839 N. Eighth St.), 938 A.2d 341 (Pa. 2007)
Nolen v. Newtown Twp., 854 A.2d 705 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
A variance is justified when the natural conditions of the land prevent reasonable development.
Solebury Township v. Solebury Township Zoning Hearing Board, 914 A.2d 972 (Pa. Cmwth. 2007).