1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Pa.Commw.
  4. 89 Pa.Commw.
  5. 89 Pa.Commw. 106 (1985)
 

PENNDOT v. CHATZIDAKIS

Nos. 84, 85, 87, 89 and 116 Miscellaneous Docket No. 4.

89 Pa.Commw. 106 (1985)

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Petitioner v. Paul Chatzidakis, Respondent. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Petitioner v. Lawrence S. Barkley, et al., Respondents. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Petitioner v. Patrick S. Burris, Respondent. Harold S. Reigle and Mildred H. Reigle, h/w v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Appellant. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Appellant v. Elizabeth Ann Agusta, Appellee.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

May 2, 1985.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William A. Slotter, Deputy Attorney General, with him, Claudia J. Martin and Rosanna Dengg Weissart, Deputy Attorneys General, Mark E. Garber, Chief, Tort Litigation Unit, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for petitioner/appellant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation.

Daniel L. Thistle, Beasley, Hewson, Casey, Colleran, Erbstein & Thistle, for appellee, Paul Chatzidakis.

Richard R. Isaacson, Berlin, Boas and Isaacson, for appellees, Lawrence S. Barkley and Falcha-Dean Barkley, his wife.

Christine L. Donohue, Evans, Rosen & Quinn, for Amicus Curiae, The Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association.

James J. Black, III, with him, Raymond M. Victor and Charles J. Arena, Raymond M. Victor, P.C., for appellee, Patrick S. Burris.

Lawrence A. Katz, with him, William L. Keller, Coffey, Keller & Kaye, for appellees, Harold S. Reigle and Mildred Reigle, his wife.

Michael D. Becker, with him, Mark S. Fridkin, Marks, Feiner and Fridkin, P.C., for appellee, Elizabeth Ann Agusta.

Argued January 30, 1985, before president Judge CRUMLISH, JR., and Judges ROGERS, CRAIG, MacPHAIL, DOYLE, COLINS and PALLADINO.

OPINION BY JUDGE MacPHAIL, May 2, 1985:

In these consolidated appeals, the sole issue presented is where venue lies in trespass actions instituted against the Department of Transportation (DOT). In each case, preliminary objections were filed and an appropriate order entered by the trial court. Because the various orders involved controlling questions of law upon which there was substantial ground for difference of opinion, we elected to hear the appeals certified...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases