Blount v. Philadelphia Parking Authority
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentJustice McCAFFERY
I must respectfully dissent because I believe (1) the majority’s conclusion that the Philadelphia Parking Authority *290(“PPA”) is a statewide agency is unsupportable; and, more importantly, (2) the statutes addressing (a) parking authorities 1 and (b) taxicabs and limousines in first class cities2 signal the legislature’s intent that the PPA is to be treated as a local authority for purposes of original jurisdiction over many if not most civil actions brought against it, including the underlying dispute in this case.
The Commonwealth Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions brought…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- City of Philadelphia v. SchweikerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Lighton v. Abington TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- E-Z Parks, Inc. v. LarsonCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Simon AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Lesser v. Warren BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.