Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 248 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 263 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[It] being claimed that thereby the final result of the operation is to take property from one or more individuals and give it to another or others. Nothing, of course, is better settled than that property cannot be taken by government without the owner’s consent for the mere purpose of devoting it to the private use of another, even though there be involved in the transaction an incidental benefit to the public. But plaintiff misconceives the nature and extent of the public purpose which is the object of this legislation. That purpose, as before pointed out, is not one requiring a continuing ownership of the property ... in order to carry out the full purpose of that act, but is directed solely to the clearance, reconstruction and rehabilitation of the blighted area, and after that is accomplished, the public purpose is completely realized. When, therefore, the need for public ownership has terminated, it is proper that the land be re-transferred to private ownership, subject only to such restrictions and controls as are necessary to effectuate the purpose of the act. It is not the object of the statute to transfer property from one individual to another; such transfers, so far as they actually occur, are purely incidental to the accomplishment of the real or fundamental purpose. (Emphasis added.) Id., 357 Pa. at 340 , 54 A.2d at 282-283 .”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Friedman v. Redevelopment Authority · A Condemnation Proceeding in Rem by the Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia

2. “‘In the case of the Urban Redevelopment Law the operation of clearing and rehabilitating the ‘slums,’ now called ‘blighted areas’, is not to be followed by a continuing ownership of properties by the Redevelopment Authorities for any such further and ulterior social-welfare purpose as that of providing low rental homes for persons in moderate circumstances. In this additional feature of the Housing Authorities Law there was implicit the modern recognition of an enlarged social function of government which called for an advance over previous legal conceptions of what constitutes a public use justifying the exercise of the power of eminent domain, but this court sustained the constitutionality of that act, and the courts of numerous other States have, without exception, upheld similar legislation. In the case of the Urban Redevelopment Law, therefore, the justification of the grant of the power of eminent domain is even clearer than in the case of the Housing Authorities Law, there being in the present act only the one major purpose of the elimination and rehabilitation of the blighted sections of our municipalities, and that purpose certainly falls within any conception of ‘public use’ for nothing can be more beneficial to the community as a whole than the clearance and reconstruction of those sub-standard areas which are characterized by the evils described in the Urban Redevelopment Law.’ In accord with this decision are a number of other relevant opinions from other jurisdi”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chartiers Valley Joint Schools v. Allegheny County Board of School Directors · Metropolitan Development & Housing Agency v. Eaton

3. “`The fact is, however, that the act contains as definite a description of what constitutes a blighted area as it is reasonably possible to express; in regard to such factors as the selection and the size of the areas to be redeveloped, the costs involved, and the exact form which the redevelopment in any particular case is to take, it was obviously impossible for the legislature to make detailed provisions or blueprints in advance for each operation.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chartiers Valley Joint Schools v. Allegheny County Board of School Directors · Velishka v. NASHUA HOUSING AUTHORITY