Legal Opinion · Dissent

Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 29, 1994No. 2322 C.D. 1993Published

1DissentPellegrini, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority characterizes a single inadvertent mistake on the part of the City’s Chief Housing Officer — not insuring that notice had been perfected before demolishing an unsafe building — as establishing a policy imposing liability in a Section 1983 action on the City of Wilkes-Barre (City). While the Owners could avail themselves of state remedies, I would hold that Section 1983 liability does not exist for failure to receive notice when it was the result of a simple mistake.

On March 9,1980, a building owned by Joseph J. Balent and George Barto (Owners) containing a…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. West v. AtkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Pembaur v. City of CincinnatiSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. City of St. Louis v. PraprotnikSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Gomez v. ToledoSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API