Clapsaddle v. Commonwealth

577 A.2d 939, 133 Pa. Commw. 605, 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 356
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 28, 1990
DocketNos. 248 & 307 M.D. 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 577 A.2d 939 (Clapsaddle v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clapsaddle v. Commonwealth, 577 A.2d 939, 133 Pa. Commw. 605, 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 356 (Pa. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

McGINLEY, Judge.

This is an application for summary relief by the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) from an order of the Board of Claims (Board of Claims) which denied the DER’s petition to transfer a claim to the Environmental Hearing Board (EHB).1 The Board of Claims [607]*607denied the petition to transfer, based on their position that the Board of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over contractual claims against the Commonwealth. The DER has filed the present application for summary relief so that this Court may entertain DER’s petition for review in the nature of a petition for a writ of prohibition, addressed to our original jurisdiction and filed in response to the Board of Claim’s refusal to transfer a case to the EHB.

Pa.R.A.P. 1532(b) states in part that “[a]t any time after the filing of a petition for review in an appellate or original matter the court may on application enter judgment if the right of the applicant thereto is clear____” Pursuant to our holding in Department of Environmental Resources v. Burr, 125 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 462, 557 A.2d 462 (1989) and our recently filed decision in Phillips v. Department of Environmental Resources, 133 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 598, 577 A.2d 935 (1990), we find that the right of the DER is clear. The Board of Claims is without jurisdiction to consider the Claimants’ appeals and that jurisdiction lies with the EHB. A writ of prohibition is appropriate where the subordinate tribunal has no authority to deal with the subject. Borough of Akron v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 453 Pa. 554, 310 A.2d 271 (1973).

Therefore, the orders of the Board of Claims are vacated and, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(c), the petition for review in the nature of a petition for a writ of prohibition is granted.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 1990, the orders of the Board of Claims in the above captioned matters are vacated. [608]*608The petition for review in the nature of a writ of prohibition is granted and the Board of Claims is hereby ordered to transfer the above captioned claims to the Environmental Hearing Board.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Independence Blue Cross v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department
670 A.2d 221 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
577 A.2d 939, 133 Pa. Commw. 605, 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clapsaddle-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1990.