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.

PARATRANSIT ASSOCIATION DELAWARE VALLEY v. HONORABLE HOWARD YERUSALIM (03/08/88)

decided: March 8, 1988.

PARATRANSIT ASSOCIATION OF DELAWARE VALLEY, INC., PETITIONER
v.
HONORABLE HOWARD YERUSALIM, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RESPONDENT



Original Jurisdiction in the case of Paratransit Association of Delaware Valley, Inc. v. Honorable Howard Yerusalim, Secretary of Transportation and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation.

COUNSEL

Barry F. Schwartz, with him, Gerald Gornish and Ronald A. Krauss ; Of Counsel: Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, for petitioner.

Kate L. Mershimer, Deputy Attorney General, with her, Andrew S. Gordon, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Litigation Section, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondents.

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

Author: Crumlish

[ 114 Pa. Commw. Page 281]

The Paratransit Association of Delaware Valley (PADV)*fn1 has filed a petition for review in our original jurisdiction,*fn2 seeking declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction prohibiting the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (DOT) from implementing coordination regulations*fn3 of the Shared-Ride Transportation Reimbursement Program.*fn4 DOT has filed preliminary objections asserting (1) lack of standing; (2) lack of jurisdiction; and (3) failure to join indispensable parties. DOT also demurs on the ground that PADV's challenges

[ 114 Pa. Commw. Page 282]

    to the coordination regulations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The preliminary objections are before us at this time.

History

The instant litigation has its genesis in regulations governing the 203 Program*fn5 which include a provision for coordinating shared-ride services in operation areas. On November 8, 1986, DOT published final coordination regulations, 67 Pa. Code ยง 425.13a.*fn6 After requesting letters of interest from operators willing to organize Philadelphia County, DOT sent interested bidders a Request for Proposal (RFP) to contract for those services. DOT accepted an RFP from a paratransit service company,*fn7 which states unequivocally that the chosen coordinator will (1) create a plan to determine the level of service in Philadelphia County; (2) define how that service will be provided; (3) select service providers on a competitive basis; (4) develop a fare structure which will fund the subcontractor's costs; and (5) assume ongoing operational responsibilities.

Standing

DOT argues that PADV lacks standing because its petition for review fails to establish any injury to itself or its individual members. To have standing, one must plead facts which establish a direct, immediate and substantial injury. Wm. Penn Parking ...


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.