Opinion

Fox v. Central Delaware County Authority

  • 475 Pa. 623
  • 381 A.2d 448
  • 1977 Pa. LEXIS 937
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 23, 1977
Status
Published
Author
Manderino
On the bench
Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino, Packel
Cited by
5 cases

a court should act only where a real controversy exists

How later courts described this case

  • a court should act only where a real controversy exists

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MANDERINO, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent. The issue before us is not moot. Appellants objected to the construction of the sewer before it was constructed. They are entitled to a review as to whether the permit was properly issued. If the permit was not properly issued, they are entitled to a remedy. The remedy could be an order that the sewer be torn out or a lesser remedy that the sewer be limited in use. Because appellants are asking for the less drastic remedy is no reason to deny them appellate review of whether the permit was properly issued in the first place.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.