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.

DAVID W. BRUHIN v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/13/74)

decided: June 13, 1974.

DAVID W. BRUHIN, HARRY W. KINGHAM AND GEORGE NAGORNY, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, JACOB KASSAB, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MAURICE K. GODDARD, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, DEFENDANTS, AND TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD, INTERVENING DEFENDANT



Original jurisdiction in case of David W. Bruhin, Harry W. Kingham and George Nagorny v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Jacob Kassab, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and Maurice K. Goddard, Secretary of the Department of Environmental Resources and Township of Springfield, Intervenor.

COUNSEL

Charles G. Nistico, with him, of counsel, Edward F. Muller, Jr., for plaintiffs.

Gregory S. Ghen, Assistant Attorney General, with him David A. Johnston, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and Israel Packel, Attorney General, for defendant, Kassab.

John P. Krill, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General, for defendant, Goddard.

Howard Saul Marcu, for intervening defendant.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. President Judge Bowman did not participate. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 14 Pa. Commw. Page 302]

This action in equity has been instituted by three individuals (plaintiffs) who purportedly represent a class composed of persons estimated to be approximately 350 in number, and living in close proximity to the proposed Springfield Mall. The defendants are Jacob G. Kassab, the Secretary of Transportation (Kassab) and Maurice K. Goddard, the Secretary of Environmental Resources (Goddard). The Township of Springfield (Township) was permitted to intervene as a defendant.

This case has essentially grown out of the proposed construction of the Springfield Mall and the issuance by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to

[ 14 Pa. Commw. Page 303]

Springfield Associates (Associates), the developers of the Mall, of Highway Occupancy Permit No. P177064, which authorizes the Associates to: "Install curb, sidewalk, acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes, traffic signals and divisors on Baltimore Pike (L.R. Bo) and Sproul Road (L.R. 225). Permittee responsible for all restoration to State Specifications (408) revised 1970."

The plaintiffs instituted this action seeking a mandatory injunction requiring the revocation of the above permit, the holding of public hearings by DOT to consider the environmental impact of the modifications authorized by the permit and requiring Kassab to prohibit Associates from modifying or altering Baltimore Pike and Sproul Road for the purpose of access or otherwise until final adjudication of this action. The plaintiffs' complaint contains five counts,*fn1 which are essentially as follows: (1) Kassab has failed to follow Section 2002(b) of The Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, added by the Act of May 6, 1970, P.L. 356, 71 P.S. § 512(b), by failing to hold a public hearing on the environmental impact of the proposed widening and other modifications of Baltimore Pike and Sproul Road authorized by the permit; (2) Kassab has violated Section 2002(a)(15) of The Administrative Code of 1929, 71 P.S. § 512(a)(15), by failing to consult with appropriate officials prior to issuing the permit; (3) Kassab has failed to ...


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.