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.

BOROUGH WHITE OAK v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/09/76)

decided: July 9, 1976.

BOROUGH OF WHITE OAK, PLAINTIFF
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DEFENDANT



Original jurisdiction in case of Borough of White Oak v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation.

COUNSEL

Edward J. Osterman, with him Evan E. Lloyd, and Eddy, Osterman & Lloyd, for plaintiff.

Stuart J. Moskovitz, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for defendant.

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

Author: Wilkinson

[ 25 Pa. Commw. Page 433]

This action in mandamus is brought by the plaintiff in an endeavor to compel the defendant to complete the construction of an expressway or to divest itself of the land it has acquired for that purpose. Defendant has filed preliminary objections raising the following 3 questions as framed in its brief:

"1. Does mandamus lie to compel a government agency given discretionary powers to exercise those powers in a specific manner?

" 2. Does Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania preclude an award against the Commonwealth for damages or to compel an affirmative action?

"3. Does a political subdivision have standing to assert any alleged rights against its mother state, absent a specific statutory allowance?"

Since we will dispose of the case by sustaining the first of the preliminary objections, it will not be necessary to deal at length with the second or third. Suffice it to say as to the second preliminary objection, it seems quite clear that the immunity from suit of

[ 25 Pa. Commw. Page 434]

    the Commonwealth for money damages under these circumstances certainly bars the money damage claim in the complaint. Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571, 190 A.2d 111 (1963). The third preliminary objection seems equally well taken, but could readily be cured and the action would be before us with proper parties.

The plaintiff admits, as indeed no one could seriously challenge, that section 2002 of the Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended, 71 P.S. ยง 512, gives the Department of Transportation the discretionary power as to where and when to build a highway. Here the complaint alleges that prior to 1968 the defendant developed plans for an expressway passing through plaintiff Borough. In July of 1968 property acquisitions for right of way were begun and continued through 1971, expending some $5,950,000. The demolitions of the structures on the acquired properties were completed in 1972. The acquisitions have resulted in the removal of a substantial tax base and the demolition, it is alleged, has resulted in the "center of the Borough [being] turned into a barren and unsightly wasteland." The complaint alleges that repeated requests for an explanation of why nothing further has been done have not ...


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.