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.

EARL E. HERRIMAN v. FRANCIS S. CARDUCCI (12/01/77)

decided: December 1, 1977.

EARL E. HERRIMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCIS S. CARDUCCI, APPELLEE



COUNSEL

Scott A. Williams, Williamsport, for appellant.

Richard H. Roesgen, McNerney, Page, Vanderlin & Hall, Williamsport, for appellee.

Ronald C. Travis, Asst. City Sol., Williamsport, for amicus curiae, City of Williamsport.

Charles J. McKelvey, McNerney, Page, Vanderlin & Hall, Williamsport, for amicus curiae, Redevelopment Authority of the City of Williamsport.

Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Jones, former C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Manderino

[ 475 Pa. Page 361]

OPINION OF THE COURT

In June of 1969, appellee, Frank Carducci, was appointed by the mayor of the City of Williamsport to a five year term on the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Williamsport. In June of 1974, upon the expiration of Carducci's term, the mayor appointed appellant, Earl Herriman, to succeed Carducci as a member of the Authority. This appointment was also for a five year term. Appellant then filed an action in quo warrantor requesting that he be declared the rightful holder of the office of member of the Redevelopment Authority. Following the close of pleadings, appellant and appellee both moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the appellee's motion. Appellant then appealed to the Commonwealth Court. That court transferred the case to this Court. See the Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, 17 P.S. § 211.202(2) (Supp.1977-78). For the reasons that follow we reverse and remand with instructions that judgment be entered for the appellant, who legally holds the office of member of the Redevelopment Authority.

The only issue presented is whether the appointment of the appellant as a member of the Redevelopment Authority can legally be made by the Mayor alone, or whether the appointment requires the consent of the City Council of Williamsport.

It is undisputed that state law does not require the consent of city council but provides for appointment by the Mayor alone. Section 5 of the Urban Redevelopment Law, 35 P.S. § 1705 (1977), reads as follows:

"Upon certification of a resolution declaring the need for an Authority to operate in a city or county, the mayor or board of county commissioners thereof, respectively, shall appoint, as members of the Authority, five citizens who

[ 475 Pa. Page 362]

    shall be residents of the city or county in which 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.