concurring opinion by Mr. Justice, now Chief Justice, Roberts in which O'Brien, C.J., and Larsen, Flaherty and Hutchinson, JJ., joined
How later courts described this case
- concurring opinion by Mr. Justice, now Chief Justice, Roberts in which O'Brien, C.J., and Larsen, Flaherty and Hutchinson, JJ., joined
- “Where injunctive relief is sought, our initial focus should be on the threshold question regarding whether equity jurisdiction is appropriate. That equity will not intervene where there is available an adequate statutorily prescribed remedy at law[] is a principle well established in this Commonwealth.”
- concurring opinion of former Chief Justice Roberts
- equity will not intervene where there is available an adequate statutorily prescribed remedy at law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by Mr. Justice McDermott, and his reasoning insofar as it denies appellee resort to equitable relief under the circumstance where appellee has not exhausted available statutory remedies, which, at least in the first instance, were not shown to be inadequate to remedy the underlying harm suffered, to wit, termination of appellee’s participation in the Pennsylvania Medical Assistance Program. In a proper case, however, in which due process is at stake and in which there is an inadequacy of the statutory remedy, equity would certainly have jurisdiction to intervene.
HUTCHINSON, J., joins.