Ruscomb Street
Citations
- 30 Pa. Super. 476
- 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 103
Syllabus
<p>Road law — Vacation of street — Damages.</p> <p>Where the effect of the vacation of a street is not to cut off access to lots from any direction, but merely to make it necessary to travel farther than before to reach them, the owner of the lots sustains no injury which will entitle him to recover damages for the vacation of the street.</p>
Judges: Beaver, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Hedrick v. HarrisburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1923-06-23· cited 24×
- Holmes v. Public Service CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1922-07-13· cited 12×
- City of Atlanta v. DinkinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia· 1932-11-08· cited 11×
- Ruscomb StreetSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1907-02-25· cited 11×
- Edgemont StreetSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1917-03-16· cited 7×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- In re Melon StreetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1897-10-11· cited 64×
- McGee's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1887-01-07· cited 31×
- Paul v. CarverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1855-07-01· cited 27×
- Wetherill v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1900-03-19· cited 19×
- Howell v. Morrisville BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1905-06-22· cited 18×
- Vacation of Howard St.Philadelphia County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1891-05-27· cited 15×
- Hare v. RicePhiladelphia County Court of Common Pleas· 1891-05-27· cited 8×
Sourced 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.