From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fraternal Order of Police v. Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 5, 1986
518 A.2d 263 (Pa. 1986)

Opinion

Argued December 1, 1986.

Decided December 5, 1986.

Appeal No. 68 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1986 from Order of Commonwealth Court entered October 21, 1985, at Nos. 2240 and 2649 C.D. 1985, Affirming Orders of Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Trial Division, Civil Section, entered October 1, 1985 at No. 2977 July Term, 1985, and No. 4088 September Term, 1985; 92 Pa. Commw. 340, 500 A.2d 900 (1985).

Robert B. Mozenter, Anthony J. Molloy, Michael S. Durst, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Carl Singley, Philadelphia, for Special Investigation Com'n.

Ralph J. Teti, Philadelphia, for City of Philadelphia.

Gaele McLaughlin Barthold, Deputy Dist. Atty., for appellee.

Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.


ORDER


This Court accepted jurisdiction in this matter to consider the issue of the subpoena power of the Philadelphia Special Investigation Commission created pursuant to Executive Order No. 5-85 issued by the Honorable W. Wilson Goode on June 19, 1985. After review and argument, it appearing that said Commission did not, during the course of its investigation, attempt to exercise any subpoena power, nor was the question raised in the courts below, that issue is not properly before this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently granted.


Summaries of

Fraternal Order of Police v. Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 5, 1986
518 A.2d 263 (Pa. 1986)
Case details for

Fraternal Order of Police v. Philadelphia

Case Details

Full title:FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE NO. 5, and Robert S. Hurst, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 5, 1986

Citations

518 A.2d 263 (Pa. 1986)
518 A.2d 263

Citing Cases

Ristau v. Casey

As previously noted, exclusive authority rests with the Governor to nominate to the Senate a proper person to…

Patriot-News Co. v. Empowerment Team

Appellants, however, also argue that, even if we deem them to be agencies within the meaning of the Act, the…