Court Opinion

ID: 9696975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:02:46.51414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:28.275911
License: Public Domain

NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the judgment of the majority that section 611 of the Eminent Domain Code, Act of June 22, 1964, Sp.Sess., P.L. 84, Art. VI, § 611, 26 P.S. § 1-611 (Supp. 1986), passes constitutional muster in determining when delay damages go into effect. I am compelled to dissent, however, from the majority’s further conclusion that the mandatory six percent interest rate prescribed by section 611 is unconstitutional. I firmly believe that the appropriate interest rate at which property owners should be compensated for delay is a matter of legislative judgment and that it is the prerogative of the General Assembly to assess whether that rate continues to be fair and just.
ZAPPALA, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.