Pignetti, G & J, h/w, Aplts. v. PennDOT

Summary

Justice Brobson dissents, arguing that the phrase “used together for a unified purpose” in 26 Pa.C.S. §705 requires an interdependency between noncontiguous parcels, not merely a common purpose, and that the Pignettis failed to demonstrate such interdependency. Accordingly, the dissent would reject the majority’s valuation of the parcels as a single unit. The opinion does not alter the Court’s ultimate disposition.