Faranda Appeal’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Simco Stores v. Redevelopment Authority (1974), Redding v. Atlantic City Electric Co. (1970)
81 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Blumenschein v. Pittsburgh Housing Authority · Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority · McSorley v. Fitzgerald · Jacobs v. Fetzer · Schwab v. Pottstown Borough
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Faranda’s final objection raises a more difficult and novel question. By his preliminary objections, Faranda has challenged the Authority’s power and right to condemn the property in question by his assertion that the said property is not, in fact, blighted. Since the condemnation of property is limited by our Constitution, supra, to a taking for a public use and since the only basis for the Authority’s present taking is that the elimination of a blighted area is such a public use (Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia, 357 Pa. 329 , 54 A.2d 277 , 172 A.L.R. 953 ), Faranda seeks to show that the area is not blighted thereby negativing the power or right of the Authority to condemn. The Authority counters by saying that an action in equity rather than a preliminary objection is the proper procedural method to follow in challenging the Authority’s taking. In the Authority’s view, a preliminary objection should be limited to attacking the wisdom, rather than the lawfulness, of the condemnation. An examination of the language of Section 406(a) of the Eminent Domain Code, supra, clearly substantiates the soundness of the view urged upon this court by Faranda. That section provides: ‘ * * * Preliminary objections shall be limited to and shall be the exclusive method of challenging (1) the power or right of the condemnor to appropriate the condemned property unless the same has been previously adjudicated * * * ’ (Emphasis supplied). See also: Snitzer, Pennsylvania Emi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.