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.

FRATERNAL ORDER POLICE LODGE NO. 5 AND ROBERT S. HURST v. CITY PHILADELPHIA ET AL. (10/21/85)

decided: October 21, 1985.

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE LODGE NO. 5 AND ROBERT S. HURST, APPELLANTS
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL., APPELLEES. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE ET AL., APPELLANTS V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL., APPELLEES



Appeals from the Orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 and Robert S. Hurst v. City of Philadelphia, W. Wilson Goode, Mayor and Chief Executive Officer and George J. Sambor, Police Commissioner, No. 2977 July Term, 1985, and in case of Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 and Robert S. Hurst, individually and in his capacity as President of Lodge No. 5, and Police Officer John Doe, in the representative capacity of a Police Officer who has been interviewed by the Philadelphia Special Investigation Commission v. City of Philadelphia and W. Wilson Goode, individually and in his capacity as Mayor, City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Special Investigation Commission, an advisory Board created pursuant to Executive Order No. 5-85, No. 4088 September Term, 1985.

COUNSEL

Robert B. Mozenter, with him, Anthony J. Molloy, Jr., and Michael S. Durst, Mozenter, Molloy & Durst, for appellants.

Carl E. Singley, Special Counsel, Philadelphia Special Investigation Commission, with him, Ralph J. Teti, Divisional Deputy City Solicitor, for appellees.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 341]

Before us are appeals of two separate Philadelphia Common Pleas Court orders which, in effect, held that the Mayor of Philadelphia did not exceed the authority of his office in creating the Philadelphia Special Investigation Commission and that the Commission did not violate the Pennsylvania Open Meeting

[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 342]

Law*fn1 when it adopted its Rules of Conduct for Commission Hearings.

The Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 (FOP), initiated the two actions which sought (1) by way of a complaint in equity and accompanying motion for special or preliminary injunction to have the Commission declared an illegal entity under the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter and (2) by way of an amended complaint in mandamus and motion for preliminary injunction to have the Commission enjoined from proceeding until it validly promulgated its rules of conduct. The common pleas court denied the motions and summarily dismissed the complaints in each instance.*fn2 An application for supersedeas to this Court at No. 2649 C.D. 1985 was denied pending disposition of the merits of these appeals.

The Mayor, by Executive Order No. 5-85,*fn3 established the Commission to investigate the May 13, 1985 Osage Avenue incident which was the "result of an

[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 343]

    interaction between the so-called MOVE organization and various departments and agencies in the Executive 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.