Flaherty v. Allegheny Port Authority

15 Citing cases

  1. Concerned Citizens v. Transp. Auth

    623 A.2d 863 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1993)   Cited 3 times

    The general rule in Pennsylvania is that discretionary powers of municipalities should not easily be disturbed by the courts. In Flaherty v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 450 Pa. 509, 299 A.2d 613 (1973), the mayors of thirteen metropolitan Pittsburgh municipalities filed for a preliminary injunction against the construction of a rapid mass transit system. The plaintiffs alleged, and the trial court agreed, that the Port Authority of Allegheny County abused its administrative discretion by, among other things, failing to select a less costly plan for rehabilitating the existing transit system; denying serious consideration to less expensive transit alternatives; and using cost projections that were "obsolete, inaccurate and grossly underestimated."

  2. Eastern Books v. Bagnoni

    446 F. Supp. 643 (W.D. Pa. 1978)   Cited 2 times

    The plaintiffs further complain that in judicial proceedings the courts may take the view that they are only to consider an abuse of discretion by an administrative body on judicial review and not get to the merits. See Flaherty v. Port Authority, 450 Pa. 509, 299 A.2d 613 (1973). Flaherty was a suit by the Mayor of Pittsburgh to prevent the Port Authority from going ahead with certain plans.

  3. Seda-Cog Joint Rail Auth. v. Carload Express, Inc.

    238 A.3d 1225 (Pa. 2020)   Cited 4 times
    Rejecting the proposition that a court may intervene against discretionary acts of municipal authorities only for an abuse of discretion, and noting that statutory interpretation is "a function entrusted to the judiciary"

    According to the JRA, judicial discretion should not be substituted for an authority's administrative discretion. Id. (quoting Flaherty v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty. , 450 Pa. 509, 299 A.2d 613 (1973) ("[J]udicial interference with the actions of municipal authorities should not be undertaken in the absence of proof of an abuse of power, bad faith, fraud or arbitrary and capricious action; the courts should be loath to review the details of the effectuation of actions of municipal authorities.")). The JRA argues that the Commonwealth Court should have deferred to its (the JRA's) interpretation of Section 5610(e) requiring nine votes to effectuate any action with respect to a new operating agreement.

  4. Deer Creek Drainage v. Cty. Bd. of Elec

    381 A.2d 103 (Pa. 1977)   Cited 5 times
    Directing that all steps be taken to ensure that a referendum question that was invalid and would have no legal effect is not presented on the ballot so as to avoid unnecessary voter confusion and the unjustified expenditure of public resources on an inoperative election, and to protect the interests of all parties

    346 A.2d 897 (1975) (action in equity and for declaratory relief, alleging unconstitutionality of no-fault legislation, begun in Commonwealth Court); Commonwealth v. Webster, 462 Pa. 125, 337 A.2d 914 (1975) (habeas corpus petition denied in court of common pleas); Tosto v. Pennsylvania Nursing Home Loan Agency, 460 Pa. 1, 331 A.2d 198 (1975) (taxpayers' suit to enjoin operation of statute filed in Commonwealth Court); Frame v. Sutherland, 459 Pa. 177, 327 A.2d 623 (1974) (quo warranto actions commenced in Commonwealth Court); Commonwealth v. Ryan, 459 Pa. 148, 327 A.2d 351 (1974) (judgments of sentence for indirect criminal contempt entered by court of common pleas); Johnson v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, 453 Pa. 329, 309 A.2d 528 (1973) (suit in equity commenced in Commonwealth Court to restrain operation of allegedly unconstitutional statute); Commonwealth ex rel. Benedict v. Cliff, 451 Pa. 427, 304 A.2d 158 (1973) (habeas corpus petitions denied in court of common pleas); Flaherty v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 450 Pa. 509, 299 A.2d 613 (1973) (decree nisi granting preliminary injunction entered by court of common pleas); Commonwealth v. Truesdale, 449 Pa. 325, 296 A.2d 829 (1972) (writ of habeas corpus issued by court of common pleas); Wieskerger Appeal, 447 Pa. 418, 420, 290 A.2d 108 (1972) (order affirming recount of ballots entered by court of common pleas); Commonwealth ex rel. Carroll v. Tate, 442 Pa. 45, 274 A.2d 193 (1971) (order in mandamus entered by court of common pleas). In one case, the Court seems to have assumed plenary jurisdiction without the commencement of any proceedings in a lower court. Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas Judges, 443 Pa. 484, 281 A.2d 57 (1971).

  5. Commonwealth v. Harmar Coal Co.

    452 Pa. 77 (Pa. 1973)   Cited 48 times
    Observing that the state's police power, including regulations maintaining the state's water resources, may be applied to business operations even where doing so causes "the imposition of new costs"

    Our review is particularly restrictive where an administrative agency resolves complex questions of technology and finance. Flaherty v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 450 Pa. 509, 299 A.2d 613 (1973). The Board, having adopted standards of general applicability, need not also conduct aquatic studies in every instance to establish pollution.

  6. Comm. to K.O.P.S.P. v. Schweiker

    803 A.2d 869 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2002)   Cited 2 times

    See Envirotest. Petitioners argue in their brief that, under Flaherty v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 450 Pa. 509, 299 A.2d 613 (1973), the lack of a contract does not preclude consideration of whether there has been a violation of section 3 of the Act. However, in Flaherty, the court knew the terms and conditions of the contract because the Port Authority had solicited bids for a particular contract and Westinghouse had submitted a bid.

  7. Prin v. Council of the Municipality of Monroeville

    165 Pa. Commw. 519 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1994)   Cited 12 times
    Remanding zoning decision for reconsideration without participation of the councilman who had advocated against the proposed project in his district

    See Sweigart Appeal, 117 Pa. Commw. 84, 544 A.2d 74 (1988). Further, this Court has long recognized that interference with the actions of a municipal body is to be undertaken in extremely limited circumstances; see, e.g., Flaherty v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 450 Pa. 509, 299 A.2d 613 (1973), where the authority acted outside the scope of its power or in an improper exercise of its discretion. Also see Frederick v. City of Butler, 30 Pa. Commw. 625, 374 A.2d 768 (1977); Haddington Leadership Organization, Inc. v. Sherman, 8 Pa. Commw. 309, 302 A.2d 919 (1973).

  8. S.E. Pa. Transp. Auth. v. Acorn

    563 A.2d 565 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1989)   Cited 3 times

    We note that where complex questions of technology and finance are resolved by administrative decision, judicial review should be particularly restricted. Commonwealth v. Harmar Coal Co., 452 Pa. 77, 306 A.2d 308 (1973), appeal dismissed sub nom, Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 415 U.S. 903, 94 S.Ct. 1395, 39 L.Ed.2d 460 (1974); Flaherty v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 450 Pa. 509, 299 A.2d 613 (1973). In effect, Judge Lehrer made a determination of how much the federal, state and local taxpayers should pay toward the operation of SEPTA. The judiciary cannot grant SEPTA the power to tax, nor can it impose a tax itself.

  9. Federation of State Cultural & Educational Professionals v. Commonwealth

    546 A.2d 147 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1988)   Cited 1 times
    Discussing John's Vending and applying its holding to determine that to subject state employees to risk of losing employment and criminal prosecution for employment activities unrelated to their regular employment exceeds legislative intent and the spirit of the State Adverse Interest Act, Act of July 19, 1957, P.L. 1017, as amended, 71 P. S. § 776.1 — 776.8

    None of the few reported cases construing the Act has addressed the narrow issue presented to us in this case, i.e., where no actual adverse interest is shown, are state employees prohibited from engaging in supplemental employment with entities which have contracts with the state agency employer? Flaherty v. Allegheny Port Authority, 450 Pa. 509, 299 A.2d 613 (1973) held that there was no violation of the Act where a corporation sought to bid on equipment for a project for which it had prepared a preliminary engineering report later adopted by the Port Authority. Storch v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 68 Pa. Commw. 74, 449 A.2d 760 (1982) involved an attorney who was employed as a parole agent and who sought to engage in the private practice of law after filing a statement with the Board that her practice would be limited to non-criminal and non-state related matters. Commonwealth v. Hughes, 21 Pa. D. C.2d 381 (1960) concerns a state highway employee who purchased and then rented to the Department of Transportation a bulldozer and collected the rentals for himself.

  10. Boro. of Sewickley W.A. v. Mollica

    544 A.2d 1122 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1988)

    The trial court also concluded that, regardless of whether the authority constituted a public utility, the authority had abused its discretion in refusing to reimburse Mollica for the cost of the extension attributable to the authority's failure to require Amoto to comply with the authority's requirement that all extensions of the waterline be constructed with six-inch pipe. Because of the broad discretionary powers given to municipal authorities, our scope of review in reviewing action of a municipal authority is limited to a determination of whether the authority has committed an abuse of discretion. Council of Plymouth Township v. Montgomery County, 109 Pa. Commw. 616, 623, 531 A.2d 1158, 1161 (1987), quoting Flaherty v. Allegheny Port Authority, 450 Pa. 509, 516-17, 299 A.2d 613, 617-18 (1973). Moreover, an abuse of discretion occurs when an authority engages in a manifestly unreasonable exercise of judgment.