City of Pittsburg v. Epping-Carpenter Co.
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Payne v. Kassab (Pa. 1976)
- HOFFMAN v. PITTSBURGH (Pa. 1950)
- Rialto Building & Loan Ass'n v. Commonwealth Title Co. (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1936)
- Reading Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1975)
- Allegheny County Port Authority v. Flaherty (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1972)
- Bruker v. Carlisle Borough (Pa. 1954)
- Easton v. Koch (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943)
- Borough of Milford v. Burnett (Pa. Super. Ct. 1926)
- Doyle v. City of Chattanooga (Tenn. 1913)
- Thomas v. Barrett (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas 1974)
- Romberger v. Commonwealth (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas 1960)
- Zerbe Township School District v. Lark (Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas 1945)
- Midland B. v. Steubenville, Co. (Pa. 1930)
- Walnut & Quince Streets Corp. v. Mills (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1930)
- Rothenberger Et Ux. v. Reading City (Pa. 1929)
- Philadelphia Tapestry Mills, Inc. v. Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1928)
- Orton v. Dalrymple (Pa. Super. Ct. 1927)
- Com. ex rel. Walker v. Centre County Commissioners (Centre County Court of Common Pleas 1927)
- Lenhart v. Wright (Pa. 1926)
- Borough of Summerhill v. Sherbine (Pa. Super. Ct. 1926)
- Stoever v. Gowen (Pa. 1924)
- Breisch v. Locust Mountain Coal Co. (Pa. 1920)
- Pittsburgh v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad (Pa. 1919)
- McKee v. Pennsylvania Railroad (Pa. 1917)
- Walker v. Erie (Pa. Super. Ct. 1916)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The issue arising upon this record embracing as it does the question of the dedication of the grcfuud in dispute to public use so long ago as 1834, presents a subject of much interest historically as well as legally. The case was tried with great ability by the learned counsel on both sides, and the findings and opinion of the learned court below exhibit a patient and very painstaking investigation of all the facts and legal questions arising. After a careful study of the testimony and a comparison of it with the findings of fact by the court, we are constrained to say that we are not convinced by the very able argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was any error either in the findings of fact or the conclusions of law appearing on the record. We have no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the plaintiff’s bill. We affirm the decree upon the opinions of the court below including the findings of fact appearing therein.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.