Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

RODES AND DE SZIRMAY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/12/71)

decided: July 12, 1971.

RODES AND DE SZIRMAY
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA



Original jurisdiction.

COUNSEL

Mark B. Weber, for plaintiffs.

Edward A. Hosey, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for defendant.

President Judge Bowman, and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Manderino, Mencer and Rogers. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 2 Pa. Commw. Page 328]

A Complaint in Equity filed by plaintiff De Szirmay, for herself and her niece, plaintiff Rodes as administratrix of the estate of her father, late of Pike

[ 2 Pa. Commw. Page 329]

County, sought to restrain defendant, Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth, from paying a condemnation award to the Municipal Authority of the Borough of Milford (Authority). They fail to meet their burden and relief must be denied.

Plaintiffs come to this Court in original jurisdiction under Section 401(a)(1) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. , No. 223, 17 P.S. ยง 211.401(a)(1). In their Complaint, they allege that they are the moving party in two pending actions. One is against the Borough and the Authority before the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, and the other is against the Authority in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In those actions, they claim water deficiency to their premises. On or about July 17, 1970, the sum of $275,000.00 was awarded by defendant to the Authority in compensation for losses sustained by the construction of Interstate Route 84. The Authority thereafter publicly announced that it would dissolve and/or terminate its existence immediately upon receipt of the award.

This injunction seeks to restrain or delay payment to the Authority so that the litigation pending might proceed to normal conclusion. Plaintiffs contend that the dissolution of the Authority will seriously jeopardize their actions against the Authority.

Defendants have filed preliminary objections raising a variety of issues, and plaintiffs, thereafter, filed preliminary objections to the preliminary objections. In the light of what we are to say, we need only discuss defendant's preliminary objection which is in the nature of a demurrer.

"In stating his cause of action, a plaintiff should be sufficiently clear and explicit so that the defendant to prepare his defense may ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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