Jennings v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• Penn-Dot precluded from arguing issue of de facto taking when it did not specifically object to same in its appeal from Board’s report

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• McGaffic v. Redevelopment Authority of New Castle
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-06-07· cited 18×
• Millcreek Township v. N.E.A. Cross Company
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-01-12· cited 18×
• Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Yudacufski
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-07-12· cited 10×
• Marx Stationery & Printing Co. v. Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-04-30· cited 8×
• Commonwealth v. Pikur Enterprises, Inc.
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-08-21· cited 8×
• Amoco Oil Co. v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-07-15· cited 6×
• Hay v. Commonwealth
  Somerset County Court of Common Pleas· 1980-08-21· cited 1×
• MILLCREEK TP. v. NEA Cross Co.
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-01-12
• Kahn v. PennDOT
  Bucks County Court of Common Pleas· 1991-04-18
• In re Condemnation of Land of Coyle
  Clinton County Court of Common Pleas· 1996-02-22

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Jacobs v. Nether Providence Township
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1972-12-01· cited 56×
• In re Ramsey
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-07-10· cited 24×
• Benjamin & Fannie Kellman Trust Fund, Dart Supply, Inc. v. Commonwealth
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1976-03-18· cited 22×