Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BADALI v. HARTMAN. (04/26/63)

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


April 26, 1963

BADALI, APPELLANT,
v.
HARTMAN.

Appeal, No. 75, March T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1962, No. 267, in case of Mariano Badali v. Robert Hartman. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Roslyn M. Litman, with her Gilbert S. Solomon, Maurice M. Braunstein, and Litman & Litman, for appellant.

Robert S. Grigsby, with him Pringle, Bredin & Martin, for appellee.

Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.

[ 410 Pa. Page 653]

OPINION PER CURIAM

A writ of certiorari was issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County to review the action of an alderman. The lower court reversed the action of the alderman and we issued a certiorari to review its decision.

Where a statute expressly denies the right of appeal, or provides that the action of the court below shall be final, then review may be had only by the Supreme Court by means of narrow certiorari. Under narrow certiorari our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the court had jurisdiction; whether the proceedings were regular; whether the court exceeded its power and authority; and, whether

[ 410 Pa. Page 654]

    there was a violation of constitutional rights. Meell Appeal, 405 Pa. 184, 174 A.2d 110 (1961); DeVito v. Civil Service Commission, 404 Pa. 354, 172 A.2d 161 (1961).

Proceedings in the court of common pleas by writ of certiorari are governed by the Act of March 20, 1810, P.L. 208, 5 Sm.L. 161, § 22, 42 P.S. § 957, which provides that "the judgment of the court of common pleas shall be final ... and no writ of error should issue thereon." See Palmer v. Lacock, 107 Pa. 346 (1844). Since the instant case is one of narrow certiorari, our scope of review is confined to the questions set forth above. On examining the record, we find no irregularities in the proceedings, no lack of jurisdiction, no violation of constitutional rights, nor any exercise of power in excess of authority. We emphasize, however, that this opinion expresses no judgment as to the merits, or upon the effect of this case upon related litigation.

Disposition

Order affirmed.

19630426

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.