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 READING KAREN A. MILLER v. MARY MAE TEMPLIN ET AL. (03/19/85)

decided: March 19, 1985.

CITY OF READING: KAREN A. MILLER, AND THE POLICE PENSION FUND BOARD OF THE CITY OF READING, APPELLANTS
v.
MARY MAE TEMPLIN ET AL., APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County in the case of Mary Mae Templin, Mary C. Althouse, Elizabeth V. Wade, Eva L. Dorsey, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Reading; Karen A. Miller, Mayor; and The Police Pension Fund Board of the City of Reading, No. 96 July Term, 1981.

COUNSEL

William M. Young, Jr., with him, Francis B. Haas, Jr., McNees, Wallace & Nurick, and Jack A. Linton and Peter F. Cianci, City Solicitor's Office, for appellants.

Susan E. B. Frankowski, with her, Leon Ehrlich and Robert T. Miller, Stevens & Lee, for appellees.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Rogers, Craig, MacPhail, Doyle, Colins and Palladino. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. Judge Williams, Jr., did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Macphail

[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 268]

The City of Reading (City) appeals*fn1 from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County which granted summary judgment to various plaintiffs*fn2 in

[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 269]

    a class action in mandamus regarding their entitlement to pension benefits from the City.

Presently before us in addition to the merits of the City's appeal are Appellees' motion to quash*fn3 and application for relief.

Appellees argue that the trial court's order is interlocutory and may not be appealed, see Section 5105 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5105, because the order grants partial summary judgment only. Appellees direct our attention to the matters of counsel fees, costs and punitive damages which were not addressed in the trial court's order. The City argues that the trial court did not designate its order as one granting partial summary judgment, characterizing the case in its then posture as ready for decision. We must look, therefore, at the record before us to determine whether the order appealed from was a final order.

Appellees, plaintiffs in the trial court, brought the instant action in mandamus seeking in their prayers for relief in the various counts of the complaint that the trial court 1) order the City to calculate the amount of pension benefits due and payable, together with interest, to the named plaintiffs and the remainder of the class, 2) order the City to continue payments of

[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 270]

    the benefits under the relevant ordinances and any future amendments and 3) award plaintiffs counsel fees, costs, punitive damages and ...


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.