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.

JAMES A. MUNTAN v. CITY MONONGAHELA (08/09/79)

decided: August 9, 1979.

JAMES A. MUNTAN, APPELLANT
v.
CITY OF MONONGAHELA, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County in case of James A. Muntan v. City of Monongahela, No. 51 January Term, 1977.

COUNSEL

E. J. Julian, for appellant.

Stephen P. McCloskey, for appellee.

Judges Mencer, Rogers and DiSalle, sitting as a panel of three. President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers, Blatt and MacPhail. Judges DiSalle and Craig did not participate. Opinion by Judge Mencer. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.

Author: Mencer

[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 24]

James A. Muntan (plaintiff) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County sustaining the preliminary objection of the City of Monongahela to plaintiff's complaint in trespass. We reverse.

Plaintiff is an individual who operates a welding business in the City of Monongahela. His complaint makes the following allegations:

3. At all times herein mentioned, Officers Bosco and McMahan were duly appointed police officers of the City of Monongahela, Defendant.

4. On or about July 19, 1975, Plaintiff was conducting said welding business at said business premises when said Officers Bosco and McMahan appeared at said premises and requested to see a work permit which said officers stated was required by a city ordinance in order to conduct the work which Plaintiff was doing at the time.

5. No such work permit was required for the work which Plaintiff was doing at the time.

6. When Plaintiff did not produce the work permit demanded by said officers, inasmuch as it was not required, the said officers ordered Plaintiff to shut down his business. When Plaintiff replied that he was not required to have a permit and that he did not have to shut down his business, said officers threatened to arrest Plaintiff for disorderly conduct. In order to avoid said threatened arrest, Plaintiff shut down his business.

7. At all times mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, officers ...


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.