Opinion
Argued December 4, 1975
January 28, 1976.
Sovereign immunity — Equity actions.
The per curiam opinion of the court was substantially as follows:
1. The sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania extends to actions in equity as well as to those in law. [123]
Argued December 4, 1975, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., MENCER and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Original jurisdiction, No. 827 C.D. 1974, in case of Hayden C. Jones, Jr. v. Israel Packel, Robert Casey, Grace Sloan, Martin L. Murray, Thomas M. Nolan, Kenneth B. Lee, Robert J. Butera, Herbert Fineman, H. Jack Seltzer, Guy A. Kistler, Henry J. Cianfrani and Raymond Lederer. Complaint in mandamus in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania seeking money damages and other compensation for wrongful incarceration. Defendants filed preliminary objections. Held: Preliminary objections sustained. Complaint dismissed.
H. David Spirt, with him Steven G. Laver, for plaintiff. Allen C. Warshaw, Deputy Attorney General, with him Lawrence Silver, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for defendants, Packel and Sloan.
Frank A. Woelfling, Deputy Counsel, with him Frank P. Lawley Jr., Chief Counsel, for defendant, Casey.
Michael C. Shields, with him A. Richard Gerber, and Gerber, Davenport Wilenzik, for defendants, Murray, Nolan, Lee, Butera, Fineman, Seltzer, Kistler, Cianfrani and Lederer.
Hayden C. Jones, Jr., plaintiff, filed two complaints with this Court. The first action in mandamus was before us at No. 805 C.D. 1974. In a per curiam opinion and Order, 20 Pa. Commw. 606, 342 A.2d 434 (1975), we sustained the preliminary objections of defendants, Packel et al., and dismissed the complaint.
The second action, in equity, is presently before us. Again, we have reviewed the briefs and record. Noting the long line of appellate court cases in this Commonwealth from Williamsport and Elmira Railroad Company v. The Commonwealth, 33 Pa. 288 (1859) to Vance v. Kassab, 15 Pa. Commw. 328, 325 A.2d 294 (1974) which extends sovereign immunity to actions in equity, we see no difference in result between the mandamus action previously filed and the instant equity action, and therefore,
By Orders dated October 15, 22; November 5, 12, 1975, the parties were permitted to file the same briefs in this action as were filed by the parties at No. 805 C.D. 1974, together with supplements.
For a statement of the facts and a thorough discussion of the issues presented, see Jones v. Packel, 20 Pa. Commw. 606, 342 A.2d 434 (1975).
ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of January, 1976, the preliminary objections of all the defendants are hereby sustained and the complaint is dismissed.