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.

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY v. ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW ET AL. (08/08/89)

decided: August 8, 1989.

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, APPELLANT,
v.
ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW ET AL., APPELLEES



Appeal from Common Pleas Court, Philadelphia County, Honorable Samuel M. Lehrer, Judge.

COUNSEL

David P. Bruton, Sefred W. Putnam, Jr., and Barbara J. Lipshutz, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Irv Ackelsberg, Deborah Harris and Angel Ortiz, Community Legal Services, Philadelphia, for Acorn, CBNP and CEPA.

David Cohen, Philadelphia, Robert L. Martin, Lee, Martin, Green & Reiter, Bellefonte, for amicus curiae, Pennsylvania Association of Municipal Transportation Authorities.

Crumlish, Jr., President Judge.

Author: Crumlish

[ 128 Pa. Commw. Page 311]

OPINION

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, the Committee for a Better North Philadelphia and the Consumer Education and Protective Association (hereinafter collectively referred to as the applicants) request a stay of this Court's Order reversing the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court and reinstating a fare increase implemented by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA).*fn1

Following a series of public hearings, the SEPTA Board approved fare increases for various SEPTA transit divisions. The trial court vacated the increases, insofar as they applied to SEPTA's City Transit Division, based on its conclusions that the approval was (1) procedurally flawed because SEPTA improperly restricted the scope of the

[ 128 Pa. Commw. Page 312]

    public hearings, and (2) substantively flawed because SEPTA failed to adequately consider the social and economic impact of the fare increases. This Court reversed, concluding that SEPTA committed no abuse of discretion in conducting the hearings and gave due consideration to socioeconomic factors.

The applicants request this Chancellor to stay that order pending their appeal to our Supreme Court. For the following reasons, we deny the application.*fn2

This Court may grant a stay if the applicants make a strong showing that they are likely to prevail on the merits; if they show they will suffer irreparable injury without the stay; and if the stay will not substantially harm other interested parties or adversely affect the public interest. Pennsylvania Public ...


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.