In re Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County

962 A.2d 1257 (2008)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
962 A.2d 1257 (2008)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

The Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County (RALC) (defendant) designated a portion of land within Millennium Park as a redevelopment area. The redevelopment area was zoned for industrial use. In cooperation with Lawrence County Economic Development Corporation (LCEDC), a private nonprofit corporation, RALC planned to exercise its eminent-domain powers to condemn the residential properties located within the Millennium Park redevelopment area to clear space for a chip-manufacturing facility. To justify eminent domain, RALC classified the residential properties within the redevelopment area as economically blighted because the highest and best use of those properties was industrial, not residential. The owners of the condemned residential properties, the Estate of David Hamilton and Thomas Whittaker (landowners) (plaintiffs), challenged RALC’s exercise of eminent domain, arguing that (1) under Pennsylvania law, private property cannot be condemned under eminent domain solely for economic development purposes; and (2) RALC cannot condemn private property to facilitate industrial development by a private entity like LCEDC. RALC countered, arguing that the landowners’ properties were blighted because residential use in an industrial zone was economically undesirable. It was undisputed that the landowners’ properties were safe, sanitary, and not subject to condemnation based on physical condition. The trial court upheld the condemnation because the landowners failed to prove that RALC’s classification of the properties as economically blighted was in bad faith. The landowners appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Leadbetter, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership