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.

LEONARD ZANCA v. STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL (02/11/76)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: February 11, 1976.

LEONARD ZANCA, PLAINTIFF
v.
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEFENDANT

Original jurisdiction in case of Leonard Zanca v. State Attorney General.

COUNSEL

Leonard Zanca, plaintiff, for himself.

Norma P. D'Apolito, Deputy Attorney General, with her Lawrence Silver, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for defendant.

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

Author: Per Curiam

[ 23 Pa. Commw. Page 289]

Leonard Zanca (Plaintiff) filed this Complaint in Trespass, in propria persona, alleging that subordinates of the Attorney General (Defendant) have wrongfully withheld his motor vehicle operator's license. Plaintiff seeks Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000) Dollars in damages and the incarceration of those individuals responsible for the loss of his operator's license.

Defendant argues in his preliminary objections that the doctrine of sovereign immunity clothes him with absolute immunity from liability money damages.

This Court has repeatedly held that high public officials have absolute immunity from civil tort liability when acting within the scope of their authority. We have no difficulty concluding that the Attorney General in this matter is a high public official and hence immune from a suit for money damages. Koynok v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 375, 316 A.2d 118 (1974); McCoy v. Liquor Control Board, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 107, 305 A.2d 746 (1973); Dubree v. Commonwealth, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 567, 303 A.2d 530 (1973).

Further, Plaintiff orders Defendant to incarcerate those individuals responsible for the loss of his motor vehicle operator's privileges. After a thorough review of the record, we find this final prayer for relief sounding in Mandamus*fn1 to be without merit, and

Order

And Now, this 11th day of February, 1976, the preliminary objections of the Defendant are sustained and the complaint dismissed.

Disposition

Preliminary objections sustained. Complaint dismissed.


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.