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
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Wilkinson, Jr. :
I concur with that portion of the majority opinion which dismisses the fourth count of plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction to determine contractual claims against the Commonwealth.
I dissent from the remainder of the opinion which dismisses the preliminary objections filed by the defendants. I cannot distinguish this case from South Whitehall Township v. Department of Transportation, 11 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 558 , 316 A.2d 104 (1974) where this Court unanimously sustained similar preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint in mandamus. I see no reason for changing the result here.