Whittaker v. Commonwealth

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Condemnation by the Redevelopment Auth. of the City of York

    No. 186 C.D. 2017 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Mar. 13, 2018)

    Accordingly, we conclude that a trial court judge must have the discretion to modify or limit a jury view based on the specific circumstances and factors relevant to each case, including the question of the safety of the jurors. This holding is consistent with our opinion in Whittaker v. Department of Transportation, 406 A.2d 819 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979), in which we addressed an argument that a new trial was warranted when the trial court judge, because of deep snow covering the condemned property, limited the jury view to a bus trip on the roads directly adjacent to the property and a stop at a high point on the road to view the property and surrounding acreage from a distance. Id. at 821.

  2. Tank Car Corp. of Am. v. Springfield Twp.

    305 A.3d 192 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2023)

    In re Right, of Way for Legislative Route 1023, Section 13, Deed Book 509, Page 302. Claim No. 3702545, 45 Pa.Cmwlth. 260, 406 A.2d 819 (1979). It is up to the tidal court, therefore, to determine whether sales of property are indeed comparable.

  3. Whitacker-Reid v. Pottsgrove Sch. Dist.

    160 A.3d 905 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2017)   Cited 8 times

    Birdsall , 649 A.2d at 743 (emphasis added). Such decision "is an inherent power of a [common pleas] court," In re Right of Way for Legislative Route 1023 , 45 Pa.Cmwlth. 260, 406 A.2d 819, 821 (1979), and common pleas courts are entitled to deference "in their urgent and rightfully prioritized quest to expedite the matters before them," Cheng v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority , 981 A.2d 371, 378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). "Four factors are used to determine whether a continuance was properly denied: (1) whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party; (2) whether opposing counsel was willing to continue the case; (3) the length of the delay requested; and (4) the complexities involved in presenting the case."

  4. Tedesco v. Municipal Auth. of Hazle

    799 A.2d 931 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2002)   Cited 10 times
    In Tedesco, we held that an option contract that did not provide for the imminent and definite sale of the condemned property but instead offered a unilateral option to purchase the property in the future at a fixed price was admissible, noting that the Code refers to a "contract to sell" not a "contract of sale."

    Redevelopment Auth. of the City of Chester v. Bosacco, 406 A.2d 1163 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1979). Whittaker v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 406 A.2d 819 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1979). The Klick Court noted that as a general principle, a sale between three to seven years before the condemnation will be found to have occurred within a "reasonable" time.

  5. Appeal of Redevelopment Authority

    156 Pa. Commw. 388 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1993)   Cited 5 times
    Stating that in "a condemnation case it is for the jury to resolve conflicts in the valuation testimony of experts which can be believed or disbelieved in whole or in part"

    Commonwealth v. Herold, 17 Pa. Commw. 148, 330 A.2d 890 (1975). In a condemnation case it is for the jury to resolve conflicts in the valuation testimony of experts which can be believed or disbelieved in whole or in part, and a jury verdict based upon a view and properly upon all the testimony will not be disturbed. Whittaker v. Department of Transportation, 45 Pa. Commw. 260, 406 A.2d 819 (1979). In appraising the expert testimony, the jury may bring to bear what it perceived with respect to the property at the time it formally viewed the property.