Court Opinion

ID: 9706870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:53:48.838418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:25.536645
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I am in complete agreement with the majority’s disposition of the instant case. However, I find it *79presently inappropriate for this Court to express its view with respect to a constitutional issue which is not presently confronting it.
In the instant case, there has been no “taking” of appellees’ property. Thus, the issue of whether the Commonwealth, under §219 of the Act of 1945, may avoid payment for improvements made to property subsequent to notification to the condemnee of an intention to condemn is not presently before the Court. As inviting as the issue may be, in light of the questionable nature of the provision, in the absence of a “taking”, an improvement subsequent to notice, and a refusal by the Commonwealth to consider such improvement as an element of damages, any consideration of the constitutionality of the issue is premature.