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.

CITY PHILADELPHIA v. DONALD GLASSEY (03/15/78)

decided: March 15, 1978.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
v.
DONALD GLASSEY



COUNSEL

Sheldon L. Albert, City Sol., for petitioner.

David Kairys, Philadelphia, for respondent.

Robert Guzzardi, Philadelphia, for Neighbors of M.O.V.E.

Eagen, C. J., and O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino and Larsen, JJ. Roberts, J., would remand. Pomeroy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Nix, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 477 Pa. Page 457]

ORDER

The Application for Stay and the Petition for Writ of Prohibition are dismissed. However, we note that when oral argument in this matter was presented to this Court, the Solicitor of the City of Philadelphia represented to this Court that the City of Philadelphia would have no objection if the challenged order of the Court of Common Pleas were to be construed to mean the following:

The Philadelphia Police Department is permitted to restrain any access, entry or occupation of the area bounded by the building lines from the north side of Baring Street to the south side of Powelton Avenue; and from the east side of 32nd Street to the west side of 34th Street by any individual, group or organization where such access, entry or occupation is for the purpose of aiding and abetting MOVE in resisting lawful order of the court.

[ 477 Pa. Page 458]

POMEROY, Justice, concurring.

In joining today's Order in this matter, I emphasize that the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dated March 8, 1978 in the above-captioned case at No. 2080 September Term, 1975 in said court, has not been appealed. Thus in my view the Order the Court now enters with respect to the petition of the would-be intervenors in that action is not to be construed as expressing any opinion as to the validity or propriety of the said order in the court below.

NIX, Justice, concurring.

I join with the action of the majority, however, I believe some clarification is necessary. ...


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.