# City of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 3, 1980 · 490 Pa. 264

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701519

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF PITTSBURGH, Appellee, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, William Sherlock, as Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Grace M. Sloan, as Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Appeal of PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION; CITY OF PITTSBURGH, Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, William Sherlock, as Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Grace M. Sloan, as Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 3, 1980
- **Citations:** 490 Pa. 264; 416 A.2d 461; 1980 Pa. LEXIS 720
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Nix
- **Judges:** Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Kauffman
- **Cited by:** 31 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701519

## Opinion text

NIX, Justice,
dissenting.
The decision of the majority overlooks one vitally important fact: that involved here is a wholly intergovernmental transaction. The party in the position of debtor as a consequence of the Public Utility Commission’s clarification order is the Department of Transportation (PennDOT), which is an arm of the Commonwealth. The creditor is the City of Pittsburgh, which is a political subdivision of that same Commonwealth. In my view, where a governmental body is in the position of creditor in the transaction and is also a subdivision of the debtor, there is no place for imposing an interest charge. For the “pockets” from which the payment must come and the eventual recipient are one-in-the-same.
If, on the other hand, there were additional costs incurred by the political subdivision to a third party for the Commonwealth’s failure to pay the specified sum at the appointed time, those costs could be rightfully charged against the state. Here no evidence was presented which showed any additional costs were incurred by the City of Pittsburgh due to PennDOT’s delay in paying the certified costs.
I therefore respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701519. Public record. Not legal advice.