finding the Commonwealth Court lacked jurisdiction to determine contractual claims brought against the Commonwealth by the City of Philadelphia and certain city officials, even though plaintiffs sought equitable relief, as Board of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction
How later courts described this case
- finding the Commonwealth Court lacked jurisdiction to determine contractual claims brought against the Commonwealth by the City of Philadelphia and certain city officials, even though plaintiffs sought equitable relief, as Board of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction
- holding that sovereign immunity does not bar a mandamus action against the Governor and the Department of Transportation to compel their perform-anee in accordance with constitutional and legislative mandates
- overruling the State’s preliminary objections to the City’s mandamus action to compel the State to expend money appropriated for highway repairs and to reimburse the City the cost of highway repairs that the State was required to make by statute
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
President Judge Bowman :
I dissent and would sustain respondents’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. I can *311 find no valid basis for distinguishing between the duties imposed upon the Department of Transportation with respect to the maintenance and repair of highways by Section 2002 of The Administrative Code of 1929 which the majority characterizes as permissive, and Section 407 of the State Highway Law which the majority characterizes as mandatory. Both statutes provide that the Department “shall” maintain and repair State highways. Thus, I would apply the rationale of our decisions in Borough of White Oak v. Department of Transportation, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 432 , 360 A.2d 825 (1976) and South Whitehall Township v. Department of Transportation, 11 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 558 , 316 A.2d 104 (1974), and dismiss the complaint for want of factual allegations that the Department in performing its duties within its budgetary confines discriminated against the City of Philadelphia or which otherwise would afford a factual basis for a conclusion of a manifest abuse of discretion in the exercise of this duty.