Close Menu
Legal MagLegal Mag
  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Technology
  • More
    • Firms
    • Law Practice
    • Trending
    • Press Release
What's On

Apple warns ruling in App Store case may cost ‘substantial sums annually’

May 8, 2025

Microsoft scores win in FTC challenge to company’s Activision Blizzard acquisition

May 7, 2025

Spotify updating app for US users in wake of Apple case ruling

May 2, 2025

Camping World CEO Marcus Lemonis closes North Carolina store amid flag dispute

April 26, 2025

Court wins lead to wins for US oil and gas energy infrastructure

April 23, 2025
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Legal MagLegal Mag
Newsletter
  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Technology
  • More
    • Firms
    • Law Practice
    • Trending
    • Press Release
Legal MagLegal Mag
Home » Pa. High Court Sides With Property Owners, Rejecting Railroad’s Eminent Domain Authority Benefiting One Private Company
Litigation

Pa. High Court Sides With Property Owners, Rejecting Railroad’s Eminent Domain Authority Benefiting One Private Company

News RoomBy News RoomAugust 22, 20241 Min Read
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest WhatsApp Email

In a unanimous decision rendered this week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a railroad company’s attempts to use eminent domain authority to take less than an acre of a couple’s private land, concluding the company’s taking wasn’t for a public purpose.

In a Tuesday decision, authored by Justice Kevin M. Dougherty, the court sided with the Reading, Pennsylvania, property owners, Gary D. Wolfe and Mary O. Wolfe, concluding the appellate court incorrectly reversed the trial court’s finding that Reading Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad Co.’s taking at issue was for a private purpose to benefit a business. The Wolfes argued the three-judge appellate panel erroneously relied on century-old case law that no longer reflected eminent powers limitations or protections against condemnations made for a private purpose.

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Previous Article9th Circuit Judge Highlights Circuit Split on Federal Preemption Question in Bankruptcy
Next Article ‘Faithless Fiduciaries’: Live Nation Faces Chancery Litigation Amid Anticompetition Allegations

Related Posts

Miami Judge Threatened: Perpetrator Gets 20 Years in Prison

August 23, 2024

Lawsuit Says NYS Assembly Refuses To Certify Ex-Legislative Director’s $100K Harassment Judgment

August 23, 2024

Judge Grants Sanctions Request Against IT Consulting Company Following ‘Egregious’ Document Production Behavior

August 23, 2024
Latest Articles

Microsoft scores win in FTC challenge to company’s Activision Blizzard acquisition

May 7, 20252 Views

Spotify updating app for US users in wake of Apple case ruling

May 2, 20256 Views

Camping World CEO Marcus Lemonis closes North Carolina store amid flag dispute

April 26, 20252 Views

Court wins lead to wins for US oil and gas energy infrastructure

April 23, 20253 Views
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Vimeo
Don't Miss

The 2024 Am Law 100: Ranked by Gross Revenue

By News RoomApril 16, 2024

For the full 2024 Am Law 100 report, click here. For more ways to analyze the…

Defending Claims Where Extreme Weather Is to Blame: Our Changing Climate’s Impact on Civil Litigation

July 18, 2024

The 2024 A-List: Top 20 Firms

August 6, 2024
© 2025 Legal Mag. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Advertise
  • Contact

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.