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.

YORK v. MONTROSE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT (06/20/73)

decided: June 20, 1973.

YORK, ET AL.
v.
MONTROSE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County, in case of Richard York and the Citizens Committee for Better Education, by Clyde J. Tims, Trustee ad Litem v. The Montrose Area School District, et al., No. 187 April Term, 1972.

COUNSEL

John J. Hovan, for appellants.

Audrey R. Kelly, with her J. Melvin Kelly, Paul A. Kelly and Kelly & Kelly, for appellees.

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

Author: Crumlish

[ 9 Pa. Commw. Page 380]

Appellants are residents, taxpayers, and parents of children within the Montrose Area School District. On the 17th of April 1972, the appellants filed a Complaint in Equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County seeking to enjoin the Montrose Area School Board from proceeding with their plans to build an addition to the existing Junior-Senior Lake Montrose structure. Appellants argued that the Board's decision to build the addition was founded on inadequate surveys and information, and hence its decision was arbitrary, capricious and in violation of its discretionary authority.

By Order dated April 17, 1972, the lower court denied injunctive relief but granted a rule to show cause

[ 9 Pa. Commw. Page 381]

    why: (1) the School District should not be restrained from the sale of bonds; (2) it should not make available findings of fact upon which it based any decision it has made; (3) it should not undertake an unprejudiced independent survey to determine the need for a new school.

On June 5, 1972, a hearing was held and on August 18, 1972, Judge Donald O'Malley issued an order vacating and discharging the rule.

Appellants prosecute the appeal to this Court.

They proffer two thrusts. First, they contend that the Board did not have a sufficient number of surveys and quality statistical data upon which to make an intelligent judgment on the need and extent of the proposed addition and so it abused its discretion. Secondly, appellants argue that the ...


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.