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.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. GOVERNOR RICHARD THORNBURGH (09/19/84)

decided: September 19, 1984.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, PETITIONER
v.
GOVERNOR RICHARD THORNBURGH, ET AL., RESPONDENTS



Original Jurisdiction in case of Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Governor Richard Thornburgh and Murray Dickman and Robert A. Bittenbender.

COUNSEL

Patrick M. McHugh, Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, Gary F. DiVito, Chief Counsel, for petitioner.

Robert J. Schwartz, Assistant Counsel, for respondents.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr., Craig, MacPhail, Doyle and Palladino. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 85 Pa. Commw. Page 268]

Before us for disposition are preliminary objections to a Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's motion to enjoin the action taken by the Secretary of Administration for the Commonwealth. We overrule the preliminary objections.

On January 25, 1984, the Secretary of Administration ordered a hiring freeze on the Board.*fn1 On January

[ 85 Pa. Commw. Page 26931]

, 1984, at the direction of its Chairman and one of its members, the Board instituted the present action seeking to enjoin the imposition of the freeze.*fn2 On February 7, 1984, this Court granted petitioner's motion to preliminarily enjoin the actions of the Secretary of Administration. Respondents filed preliminary objections raising the question of lack of capacity to sue.

Respondents argue that the Board failed to take the formal action required to authorize the suit. They contend that under Section 203 of the Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. § 2-203, formal action requires the approval of at least two members. Citing the Open Meeting Law, Act of July 19, 1974, P.L. 486, as amended, 65 P.S. §§ 261-269, they further contend that formal action must be approved at a public meeting.

The Chancellor recognized in granting the preliminary injunction that the immediate imposition of the hiring freeze would have resulted in great hardship to the Board. In granting the preliminary relief, he recognized the urgency in writing:

This hasty and arbitrary decision to effectuate this freeze has, and will continue to have, a chaotic result. As clearly seen in the record, the measures imposed by Secretary Dickman will result in extreme hardship to the agency. The Board's marketing program will be severely damaged, causing ...


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.