Frederick Street
Citations
- 150 Pa. 202
- 24 A. 669
- 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1307
Syllabus
<p>Boroughs—Widening streets—Implied repeals—Acts, 1851, 1891.</p> <p>The power of a borough of its own motion to open or widen a street under the Act of April 3, 1851, P. L. 320, is not impaired by the Act of May 16, 1891, P. L. 75, providing for the passage of ordinances for such purposes on the petition of a majority of the property owners. There is nothing repugnant in the existence of two methods of initiating improvements. A borough council may exercise its own judgment as to a street in a built-up portion of a borough while as to a remoter highway it may wait to be moved by the petition of the property owner.</p> <p>Where a borough has properly passed an ordinance under the Act of Apr 3, 1851, for the widening of a street, the proceedings to carry it out by the appointment of viewers, etc., can be had under the Act of May 16, 1891.</p> <p>Hand v. Fellows, and McCall v. Coates, applied.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the Board of Claims had jurisdiction because “this case ... concerns the question of whether DPW breached the provider agreement by not following its own regulations”
- holding that the Board of Claims had jurisdiction because \this case . . . concerns the question of whether DPW breached the provider agreement by not following its own regulations\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Collum, Heydrick, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.