The Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted the Eminent Domain Code in these consolidated appeals. The Court held “that a public or quasi-public entity need not possess a property-specific power of eminent domain in order to implicate inverse condemnation principles”. The facts and procedural history spanned 19 of the opinion’s 26 pages. After interpreting the Eminent Domain Code, the Court concluded, “At this juncture, it appears that the case should be returned to the Commonwealth Court to address Appellants’ challenge to the common pleas court’s alternative disposition (based upon the landowners’ purported off-the-record waiver of any entitlement to an evidentiary hearing), which had been obviated by the intermediate court’s initial remand decision and that court’s ensuing affirmance of the re-dismissal of Appellants’ petitions”. Wait . . . What?