Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Washington Park, Inc. Appealgreen1 sentence2024Rd. for Benefit of O’Reilly, 5 A.3d 246 (Pa. 2010). 7 See in re Legislative Route 62214, Section 1-A, 229 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa. 1967) (“[A] taking does not ‘lose its public character merely because there may exist in the operation some feature of private gain, for if the public good is enhanced it is immaterial that a private interest also may be benefited.’” (quoting Belovsky v. Redevelopment Auth. of City of Phila., 54 A.2d 277, 283 (Pa. 1947))). 8 To put a finer point on it, under the modern iteration of the public purpose standard, this Court looks for the “real,” “fundamental,” or “true purpose” | 1 | 1 |
Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authoritygreen1 sentence2024Rd. for Benefit of O’Reilly, 5 A.3d 246 (Pa. 2010). 7 See in re Legislative Route 62214, Section 1-A, 229 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa. 1967) (“[A] taking does not ‘lose its public character merely because there may exist in the operation some feature of private gain, for if the public good is enhanced it is immaterial that a private interest also may be benefited.’” (quoting Belovsky v. Redevelopment Auth. of City of Phila., 54 A.2d 277, 283 (Pa. 1947))). 8 To put a finer point on it, under the modern iteration of the public purpose standard, this Court looks for the “real,” “fundamental,” or “true purpose” | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Opening a Private Road for the Benefit of O'Reilly
green
2 sentences2024Rd. for Benefit of O’Reilly, 5 A.3d 246 (Pa. 2010). 7 See in re Legislative Route 62214, Section 1-A, 229 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa. 1967) (“[A] taking does not ‘lose its public character merely because there may exist in the operation some feature of private gain, for if the public good is enhanced it is immaterial that a private interest also may be benefited.’” (quoting Belovsky v. Redevelopment Auth. of City of Phila., 54 A.2d 277, 283 (Pa. 1947))). 8 To put a finer point on it, under the modern iteration of the public purpose standard, this Court looks for the “real,” “fundamental,” or “true purpose” 2016In order to satisfy this public purpose requirement, “the public must be the primary and paramount beneficiary of the taking.” O’Reilly, 5 A.3d at 258 . | 3 | 2016–2024 |
Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences2017For all these reasons, we affirm the order of the trial court. ______________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge 15 In land use cases, the extent of a taking by zoning regulation is a relevant consideration as established in Hertzberg v. Miryam’s, 721 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1998). 17 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Petition of Burton R. 2017For all these reasons, we affirm the order of the trial court. ______________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge 15 In land use cases, the extent of a taking by zoning regulation is a relevant consideration as established in Hertzberg v. Miryam’s, 721 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1998). 17 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Petition of Burton R. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone
green
1 sentence2024Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d at 337 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Price v. Philadelphia Parking Authority
green
1 sentence2024The Price Court analogized the issue in that case to the question of whether a taking satisfies the public purpose requirement in eminent domain, and summarized the eminent domain standard as requiring “the primary and paramount beneficiary of its exercise” be “the public.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Smith v. Cortez
green
1 sentence2010In *409 Smith v. Cortes, 879 A.2d 882 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005), aff 'd, 587 Pa. 506 , 901 A.2d 980 (2006), the petitioner, a notary public, commenced an action in our original jurisdiction, seeking to compel the Secretary of the Commonwealth to reimburse her for the expenses incurred in satisfying the education requirement under Section 5(c) of the Notary Public Law. 19 The petitioner claimed that the expense constituted an unlawful taking for a public purpose in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Selwyn v. Ward
green
2 sentences2010In *409 Smith v. Cortes, 879 A.2d 882 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005), aff 'd, 587 Pa. 506 , 901 A.2d 980 (2006), the petitioner, a notary public, commenced an action in our original jurisdiction, seeking to compel the Secretary of the Commonwealth to reimburse her for the expenses incurred in satisfying the education requirement under Section 5(c) of the Notary Public Law. 19 The petitioner claimed that the expense constituted an unlawful taking for a public purpose in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. 2010Smith, 879 A.2d at 384 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Fisher v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2010In *409 Smith v. Cortes, 879 A.2d 882 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005), aff 'd, 587 Pa. 506 , 901 A.2d 980 (2006), the petitioner, a notary public, commenced an action in our original jurisdiction, seeking to compel the Secretary of the Commonwealth to reimburse her for the expenses incurred in satisfying the education requirement under Section 5(c) of the Notary Public Law. 19 The petitioner claimed that the expense constituted an unlawful taking for a public purpose in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.