Did you know the right to eminent domain goes as far back as the Magna Carta? Eminent domain is hardly new news, and as such recent game changing cases regarding the subject are few and far between. The last major eminent domain case decided by the United States Supreme Court was Kelo v. the City of New London (2006), which held that an entity clothed with the power of eminent domain was permitted to acquire property merely to resell it to a private entity. Kelo had an enormous impact on many states, and here in Pennsylvania the case spurred the adoption of the Property Rights Protection Act, which aimed at preventing a repeat of the events that lead to Kelo. The recent decision of Knick v. Township of Scott is likely to have just as great of an impact on litigants.
Continue Reading How The Recent U.S. Supreme Court Case Of Knick v. Township Of Scott Could Be Buying Everyone More Trips To The Federal Courthouse
Dana Chilson
The I-83 Capital Beltway Project: PennDOT’s Right-of-Way Acquisition and Power of Eminent Domain
“Oh, don’t go that way. You want to avoid the Beltway.” It’s a common chorus in many American cities. Harrisburg is no exception and backups on its Beltway encroach onto Front Street and other arterial and connector roads on a daily basis. In recent years, the issues have been exasperated as we continue to see populations trending from rural to urban locations while, at the same time, continue to experience aging and weakening transportation infrastructure. But plans to bring relief to Harrisburg’s Beltway have been in the works for 15 years. In 2003, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”) prepared an I-83 Master Plan, the purpose of which was to identify, plan, and program future transportation improvement projects for the I-83 Capital Beltway. The Master Plan proposed numerous improvements to the Beltway to address: (1) worsening road conditions; (2) high-traffic volumes and congestion; and, (3) safety. Obviously, the Master Plan will affect municipalities and businesses alike.
Continue Reading The I-83 Capital Beltway Project: PennDOT’s Right-of-Way Acquisition and Power of Eminent Domain
Rancosky: The (Clarified) Insurance Bad Faith Standard
What almost every individual, business, and municipality have in common is that they have some sort of insurance coverage, and sooner or later they need to use it. But if the insurance company won’t hold up its end of the bargain, how does an insured prove that an insurer acted in bad faith?
Although the issue has been well settled since the Superior Court decided Terletsky v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. in 1994, there has been much confusion as to whether or not ill motive or ill will is required. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, recently weighed in, newly confirming the old standard.
Continue Reading Rancosky: The (Clarified) Insurance Bad Faith Standard
Sewer Authorities Could Owe Compensation for Repeated Sewage Overflows
Sewage backups tend to make relationships between landowners and their municipal sewer authorities rather, well, messy. When property is impacted by a sewer authority’s negligence, landowners would typically find a remedy in a trespass action. However, a recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania holds that repeated sewage backups may cause a de facto taking under the Pennsylvania Eminent Domain code, requiring compensation to the landowner. This is yet another area of concern and possible liability for municipal authority operators.
Continue Reading Sewer Authorities Could Owe Compensation for Repeated Sewage Overflows
Municipalities Can Be Held Liable for the Actions (and Words) of Their Officials
Much like a business corporation, a municipality can only act through its employees. A municipal official may inadvertently (or advertently) make representations regarding municipality business, leading to unintended consequences. Municipalities must keep in mind that their agents and employees, including township supervisors and other officials, can bind municipalities to agreements and subject them to liability…
I Have a Judgment, Now What? Priority of Judgments
Litigation can often be long and tiresome. Unfortunately, a successful verdict does not always lead to the desired outcome – the defendant paying up. Previous parts of this series addressed other aspects of collecting and enforcing judgments. Part I of this series discussed collecting a money judgment through the garnishment process. Part II explained a …
How Adverse Possession Can Affect The Eminent Domain Process
For boroughs, townships, municipalities, and cities, eminent domain is a tool used to better the communities in which we live, whether than means widening an increasingly busy road or constructing a new community park. While eminent domain is an important and powerful tool, condemnors must be sure that they follow the proper procedures, including notice to all property owners, both those of record and those who are not.
Continue Reading How Adverse Possession Can Affect The Eminent Domain Process
I Have a Judgment, Now What?: Collecting and Enforcing a Money Judgment Through a Sheriff’s Sale
You won your lawsuit, and now you want to be paid. But how do you get an unwilling defendant to cough up the cash? You have several options. Part I of this series discussed collecting a money judgment through the garnishment process. This article explains a second option: conducting a sheriff’s sale of the defendant’s real or personal property in order to be made whole.
I Have a Judgment, Now What? Collecting and Enforcing a Money Judgment Through the Garnishment Process
As a plaintiff, you often roam a long and weary road before you achieve your ultimate litigation goal: a judgment against a defendant. Now that you have your prize, what do you do with it? With any luck, the defendant recognizes the error of his or her ways and willingly pays you the full amount…
Judicial Code Provisions Do Not Automatically Apply in Eminent Domain, Says Commonwealth Court
On June 22, 2016, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decided the case of Township of Millcreek v. Angela Cres Trust of June 25, 1998, 1725 C.D. 2015, which decided whether 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 applies to eminent domain cases. Section 5505 provides, in pertinent part, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a court…