Case Name: Hayden C. Jones, Jr., Plaintiff v. Israel Packel, Robert Casey, Grace Sloan, Martin L. Murray, Thomas M. Nolan, Kenneth B. Lee, Robert J. Butera, Herbert Fineman, H. Jack Seltzer, Guy A. Kistler, Henry J. Cianfrani and Raymond Lederer, Defendants
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1976-01-28
Citations: 23 Pa. Commw. 122
Docket Number: No. 827 C.D. 1974
Parties: Hayden C. Jones, Jr., Plaintiff v. Israel Packel, Robert Casey, Grace Sloan, Martin L. Murray, Thomas M. Nolan, Kenneth B. Lee, Robert J. Butera, Herbert Fineman, H. Jack Seltzer, Guy A. Kistler, Henry J. Cianfrani and Raymond Lederer, Defendants.
Judges: before Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 122–124

Head Matter:
Hayden C. Jones, Jr., Plaintiff v. Israel Packel, Robert Casey, Grace Sloan, Martin L. Murray, Thomas M. Nolan, Kenneth B. Lee, Robert J. Butera, Herbert Fineman, H. Jack Seltzer, Guy A. Kistler, Henry J. Cianfrani and Raymond Lederer, Defendants.
Argued December 4, 1975,
before Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.
H. David Spirt, with him Steven G. Laver, for plaintiff.
Allen C. Warshaw, Deputy Attorney General, with him Lawrence Silver, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for defendants, Packel and Sloan.
Frank A. Woelfiing, Deputy Counsel, with him Frank P. Lawley Jr., Chief Counsel, for defendant, Casey.
Michael C. Shields, with him A. Richard Gerber, and Gerber, Davenport & Wilenzik, for defendants, Murray, Nolan, Lee, Butera, Fineman, Seltzer, Kistler, Cianfrani and Lederer.
January 28, 1976:

Opinion:
Per Curiam
Opinion,
Hayden C. Jones, Jr., plaintiff, filed two complaints with this Court. The first action in mandamus was before us at No. 805 C.D. 1974. In a per curiam opinion and Order, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 606, 342 A.2d 434 (1975), we sustained the preliminary objections of defendants, Packel et al., and dismissed the complaint.
The second action, in equity, is presently before us. Again, we have reviewed the briefs and record. Noting the long line of appellate court cases in this Commonwealth from Williamsport and Elmira Railroad Company v. The Commonwealth, 33 Pa. 288 (1859) to Vance v. Kassab, 15 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 328, 325 A. 2d 294 (1974) which extends sovereign immunity to actions in equity, we see no difference in result between the mandamus action previously filed and the instant equity action, and therefore,
Order
And Now, this 28th day of January, 1976, the preliminary objections of all the defendants are hereby sustained and the complaint is dismissed.
. By Orders dated October 15, 22; November 5, 12, 1975, the parties were permitted to file the same briefs in this action as were filed by the parties at No. 805 C.D. 1974, together with supplements.
. For a statement of the facts and a thorough discussion of the issues presented, see Jones v. Packel, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 606, 342 A.2d 434 (1975).