Zanca v. State Attorney General

351 A.2d 335, 23 Pa. Commw. 288, 1976 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 860
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 11, 1976
DocketNo. 120 Misc. Docket
StatusPublished

This text of 351 A.2d 335 (Zanca v. State Attorney General) 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
Zanca v. State Attorney General, 351 A.2d 335, 23 Pa. Commw. 288, 1976 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 860 (Pa. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Per Curiam

Opinion,

Leonard Zanca (Plaintiff) filed this Complaint in Trespass, in propria persona, alleging that subordinates of the Attorney General (Defendant) have 'wrongfully withheld his motor vehicle operator’s license. Plaintiff seeks Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000) Dollars in damages and the incarceration of those individuals responsible for the loss of his operator’s license.

Defendant argues in his preliminary objections that the doctrine of sovereign immunity clothes him with absolute immunity from liability money damages.

This Court has repeatedly held that high public officials have absolute immunity from civil tort liability when acting within the scope of their authority. We have no difficulty concluding that the Attorney General in this matter is a high public official and hence immune from a suit for money damages. Koynok v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 375, 316 A. 2d 118 (1974); McCoy v. Liquor Control Board, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 107, 305 A. 2d 746 (1973); Dubree v. Commonwealth, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 567, 303 A. 2d 530 (1973).

Further, Plaintiff orders Defendant to incarcerate those individuals responsible for the loss of his motor vehicle operator’s privileges. After a thorough review of the record, we find this final prayer for relief sounding in Mandamus1 to be without merit, and

Order

And Now, this 11th day of February, 1976, the preliminary objections of the Defendant are sustained and the complaint dismissed.

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

Related

Koynok v. Commonwealth
316 A.2d 118 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
DuBree v. Commonwealth
303 A.2d 530 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
McCoy v. Liquor Control Board
305 A.2d 746 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
Burlington Homes, Inc. v. Kassab
332 A.2d 575 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
351 A.2d 335, 23 Pa. Commw. 288, 1976 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zanca-v-state-attorney-general-pacommwct-1976.