In re: Condemnation by the Municipality of Penn Hills (D’Andrea)
870 A.2d 400 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)
Takings
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island,
533 U.S. 606 (2001)
In re Condemnation (Newport Homeowner’s Assn.), Pa. Commw. (2005)
In re Condemnation (Newport Homeowner’s Assn.),
873 A.2d 14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)
National Casualty Company v. Newtown Twp. and James Nolen, III (2000)
Public Official Liability Coverage May Available to Defend Claims Against a Township Arising Out of a Land Use Moratorium and Alledged Inverse Condemnation
National Casualty Company v. Newtown Township and James A. Nolen,III, 2000 WL 1052142 (E.D.Pa.) July 24, 2000
In re: Condemnation Proceeding by South Whitehall Township Authority, Pa. Commw. (2008)
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).
Kelo v. New London (2005)
Kelo v. New London,
125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005)
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).
Borough of Duncansville v. Beard, Pa. Commw. (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).
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)
Hunt v. Zoning Hearing Board, Pa. Commw. (2013)
Applicant for validity variance need not prove all elements of a variance, but must prove zoning ordinance is restrictive to the point of confiscation.
Hunt v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 61 A.3d 380 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).