The "Pennsylvania Supreme Court has consistently relied upon the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in deciding cases implicating the Takings Clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Smith v. Cortes, 879 A.2d 382, 385 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005) (citing In the Matter of Condemnation of the Municipality of Penn Hills, 870 A.2d 400 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005)), aff'd sub nom. Smith v. Cortez, 901 A.2d 980 (Pa. 2006).
The "Pennsylvania Supreme Court has consistently relied upon the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in deciding cases implicating the Takings Clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution. SeeSmith v. Cortes , 879 A.2d 382, 385 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005) (citing In the Matter of Condemnation of the Municipality of Penn Hills , 870 A.2d 400 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005) ), aff'd sub nom.Smith v. Cortez , 587 Pa. 506, 901 A.2d 980 (2006). Therefore, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would likely reach the same conclusion.
Appellate review in a case where the trial court has sustained preliminary objections to a petition for an appointment of viewers is directed to considering whether the common pleas court's findings are supported by substantial evidence of record, and whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. See Sienkiewicz I, 584 Pa. at 279, 883 A.2d at 500 (citing Denes, 547 Pa. at 156, 689 A.2d at 222 (1997) ); In re Condemnation by Municipality of Penn Hills, 870 A.2d 400, 404 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). McElwee v. SEPTA , 596 Pa. 654, 948 A.2d 762, 771 (2008).
Appellate review in a case where the trial court has sustained preliminary objections to a petition for an appointment of viewers is directed to considering whether the common pleas court's findings are supported by substantial evidence of record, and whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. See Sienkiewicz I, 584 Pa. at 279, 883 A.2d at 500 (citing Denes, 547 Pa. at 156, 689 A.2d at 222 (1997)); In re Condemnation by Municipality of Penn Hills, 870 A.2d 400, 404 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005). As demonstrated above, the Commonwealth Court's recitation of this dispute's factual underpinnings contrasted sharply with that of the trial court.
Under these circumstances, it is far less likely that a compensable taking has occurred. See Leon County, 873 So.2d at 467 (no taking where landowners sold property for $500,000 profit after court-ordered moratorium on development was dissolved); Condemnation By The Municipality of Penn Hills, 870 A.2d 400, 409 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (no taking where 29-month injunction to suspend property development did not prevent landowners from gaining a reasonable return on their investment after injunction was dismissed). [ΒΆ 26] An extraordinary delay in governmental decisionmaking coupled with bad faith on the part of the governmental body may result in a compensable taking of property.
In any event, although it was somewhat disingenuous for borough counsel to suggest that all FPM had to do was to request two connections per month, the testimony of Balascak and Erdman regarding connections requiring flow equalization suggests that FPM was not without options. See In re Matter of Condemnation by Municipality of Penn Hills, 870 A.2d 400 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (temporary deprivation from using property for highest and best use does not constitute de facto taking); Appeal of D.R.E. Land Developing, Inc., 613 A.2d 96 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (increased burden of existing easement over property for drainage system did not constitute de facto taking).Finally, we note that the property, in this respect, is in the same condition as when it was purchased by FPM, i.e., without sewer connections but with the hope of getting them some months in the future.
No person shall for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall private property be taken or applied to public use, without authority of law and without just compensation being first made or secured. Recently, in In the Matter of Condemnation of the Municipality of Penn Hills, 870 A.2d 400 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005), this Court recognized that our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has consistently relied upon the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. In United Artists' Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 535 Pa. 370, 635 A.2d 612 (1993), our Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, with respect to the designation of a landmark, the takings clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution does not provide more extensive protection than does the United States Constitution.