The taking of an easement “over, under and through” a piece of property does not result in a fee simple interest taking as a matter of law.
In re: Condemnation Proceeding by South Whitehall Township Authority, (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
Takings
In Re: Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of York (2008)
Delay damages are awarded only for the loss of the use of property from the time an owner relinquishes possession until they receive just compensation.
In Re: Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of York, (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
Borough of Duncansville v. Beard (2007)
An easement not intended for or used by the public cannot be partially condemned for public purposes as a street.
Borough of Duncansville v. Beard, 919 A.2d 327 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
In re: Condemnation of Springboro Area Water Authority (2006)
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).
In re: Condemnation by the County of Berks, a Third Class County, of Lands and all Improvements thereon for Public Recreation Places and Public Parks (2007)
An entity lacks standing as a condemnee in an eminent domain proceeding if it has no legal or equitable property interest in the property being condemned.
In re: Condemnation by the County of Berks, a Third Class County, of Lands and all Improvements thereon for Public Recreation Places and Public Parks, 914 A.2d 962 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
Middletown Twp. v. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d 331 (Pa. 2007)
Second Class Townships are authorized to condemn property under the Second-Class Township Code, 23 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 67201, for any legitimate recreational purpose. However, where the fundamental purpose of a taking is not found to be recreational, the taking is invalid.
Middletown Twp. v Lands of Stone,
882 A.2d 1066 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), app. granted.
Reversed by: Middletown Twp. v. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d 331 (Pa. 2007)
Lingle v. Chevron (2005)
The extent to which a regulation advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to whether the regulation has affected a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Lingle v. Chevron,
125 S. Ct. 2074 (2005).
In re Condemnation (St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Congregation of Sharpsburg) (2006)
A First Class Township may condemn, for recreational purposes, property owned by a church and which was designated to be used as a cemetery.
In re Condemnation (St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Congregation of Sharpsburg), 910 A.2d 166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
In re Condemnation Proceeding by the Redevelopment Auth. of Phila. (1839 N. Eighth St.), 938 A.2d 341 (Pa. 2007)
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)
Valley Township v. Coatesville (2006)
Nothing in the Eminent Domain Code requires a condemnor to file for subdivision approval either before or after a condemnation.
Valley Township v. Coatesville,
894 A.2d 885 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006)