Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 516. Right of appeal.
(a) Extent of right.--
(1) Any party aggrieved by the decision of the viewers may appeal to the court. The appeal
shall raise all objections of law or fact to the viewers' report.
(2) The appeal shall be signed by the appellant or an attorney or agent, and no verification
shall be required.
(3) Any award of damages or assessment of benefits, as the case may be, as to which no
appeal is taken shall become final as of course and shall constitute a final judgment.
(b) Consolidation.--The court, on its own motion or on application of any party in interest, may consolidate
separate appeals involving only common questions of law as one proceeding.
(c) Cross appeals.--If a timely appeal is filed by a party, any other party may file an appeal within
15 days of the date on which the first appeal was filed. An appeal may be taken from
less than all of an award.
(d) Withdrawal.--Prior to the beginning of testimony, any party may withdraw its appeal without the
consent of the other parties.
Notes of Decisions
Capital City Holdings, LLC v. DOT (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022).
“See 26 Pa.C.S. § 516(a)(1). 16 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Capital City Holdings, LLC : : v.”
S.R. Trinidad v. Com. of PA, DOT (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025).
“) On appeal, DOT argues common pleas’ dismissal after Condemnee’s failure to appear effectively deprived DOT of the de novo trial to which it was entitled under Section 516(a)(1) of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa.C.S. § 516(a)(1). According to DOT, common pleas effectively…”
— 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 516(a)(1) — 3 cases
Capital City Holdings, LLC v. DOT (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022).
“See 26 Pa.C.S. § 516(a)(1). 16 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Capital City Holdings, LLC : : v.”
S.R. Trinidad v. Com. of PA, DOT (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025).
“) On appeal, DOT argues common pleas’ dismissal after Condemnee’s failure to appear effectively deprived DOT of the de novo trial to which it was entitled under Section 516(a)(1) of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa.C.S. § 516(a)(1). According to DOT, common pleas effectively…”
— 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 516(a)(3) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.