# In Re Condemnation by the Urban Redevelopment Authority

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 12, 1991 · 527 Pa. 550

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752876

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of CONDEMNATION BY the URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH of Certain Land in the Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Wards of the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Redevelopment Area No. 39 (North Shore), Being Property of E-V Company, a Partnership Composed of Emil F. Kehr and Vincent E. Malone, or Any Other Persons Found to Have an Interest in the Property, Keller Office Equipment Company, Pittsburgh Harley Davidson, Inc., Formerly Allegheny County Distributors, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, or Any Other Person Found to Have an Interest in the Property. Appeal of E-V COMPANY, a Partnership Composed of Emil F. Kehr and Vincent E. Malone, or Any Other Persons Found to Have an Interest in the Property, and Keller Office Equipment Company
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 12, 1991
- **Citations:** 527 Pa. 550; 594 A.2d 1375; 1991 Pa. LEXIS 145
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752876

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that a city planning commission, like a government agency, is “presumed to perform its duties in good faith and according to law.”

## Opinion text

FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority sanctions the wielding of unchecked governmental power over the rights of property owners for a purpose not traditionally governmental, i.e. taking from one to give to another. At the least minimal due process would require the opportunity for one whose property is to be placed in jeopardy to be heard on the issue of blight which will conclusively determine whether a prospective taking is for a governmental purpose sufficient to invoke the power of eminent domain. I sense the majority is adopting an “end justifies the means” approach and I view it as a dangerous precedent. I dissent.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752876. Public record. Not legal advice.