# Spykerman v. Levy

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 22, 1980 · 491 Pa. 470

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746700

## Case

- **Full name:** Raymond T. SPYKERMAN and Lawrence Healy, Individually and in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Chester and John J. Matthews, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Vacancy Board of the Township of Chester, Appellants, v. the Honorable Melvin G. LEVY, in His Official Capacity as Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the 32nd Judicial District, and All Other Judges of Said District or Appointed to Serve in Such District Acting as His Substitute or Successor, Appellees; Connie HALES and Joseph Palazzo, Individually and in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Chester, Appellees, v. the TOWNSHIP OF CHESTER, Raymond T. Spykerman and William Pisarek, Individually and in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Chester and Frank Slavin, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Engineer for the Township of Chester and Thomas Stapleton, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Solicitor for the Township of Chester and William Phillips, Individually and in His Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Chester, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 22, 1980
- **Citations:** 491 Pa. 470; 421 A.2d 641; 1980 Pa. LEXIS 798
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Nix, Flaherty, Larsen, O'Brien
- **Cited by:** 40 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/9746700

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the public interest requires the general performance of the duties of a public office pending the litigation, a concern not present here with respect to the offices of district attorney and sheriff of Macon County, and that the trial court "abused its discretion" …

## Opinion text

FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring.
I adopt the rationale expressed by Mr. Justice Larsen, but concur in the result reached by the majority opinion in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746700. Public record. Not legal advice.