Valley Center, Inc. for Mental Health v. Parkhouse

• Citation: 437 A.2d 74,62 Pa.Cmwlth. 453
• Parties: VALLEY CENTER, INC. FOR MENTAL HEALTH v. A. Russell PARKHOUSE et al. Aileen ROTHBARD v. A. Russell PARKHOUSE et al. Appeal of VALLEY CENTER, INC. FOR MENTAL HEALTH and Aileen Rothbard. VALLEY CENTER, INC. FOR MENTAL HEALTH v. A. Russell PARKHOUSE et al. Aileen ROTHBARD v. A. Russell PARKHOUSE et al. Appeal of VALLEY CENTER, INC. FOR MENTAL HEALTH and Aileen Rothbard.
• Decision Date: 17 November 1981
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 74

437 A.2d 74

62 Pa.Cmwlth. 453

VALLEY CENTER, INC. FOR MENTAL HEALTH v. A. Russell PARKHOUSE et al.

Aileen ROTHBARD v. A. Russell PARKHOUSE et al.

Appeal of VALLEY CENTER, INC. FOR MENTAL HEALTH and Aileen Rothbard.

VALLEY CENTER, INC. FOR MENTAL HEALTH v. A. Russell PARKHOUSE et al.

Aileen ROTHBARD v. A. Russell PARKHOUSE et al.

Appeal of VALLEY CENTER, INC. FOR MENTAL HEALTH and Aileen Rothbard.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 14, 1981.

Decided Nov. 17, 1981.

Robert Redler, Marc D. Jonas, Lansdale, for appellant.

Logan M. Bullitt, IV, Asst. County Sol., Norristown, for appellee.

Before MENCER, ROGERS and WILLIAMS, JJ.

MENCER, Judge.

Valley Center, Inc. for Mental Health and Aileen Rothbard (petitioners) have appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County which denied a request for a preliminary injunction against A. Russell Parkhouse, et al., members of the Board of Commissioners of Montgomery County. We affirm.

In this action, an unsuccessful bidder and a taxpayer seek to enjoin the execution of a contract awarded by the Montgomery County Commissioners for the operation of certain employment counseling and training centers under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 801-899. The disputed contract became effective on October 1, 1980 and expired on September 30, 1981. ¹ A detailed recitation of the facts may be found in the able opinion of the Honorable Anthony I. Scirica in Valley Center, Inc. for Mental Health v. Parkhouse, 108 Montg. 368 (C.P. Pa. 1981).

In cases such as this,

our scope of review is narrowly limited to a determination, following examination of the record, of whether there are any apparently reasonable grounds to support the order of the court below. Credit Alliance Corp. v. Philadelphia Minit-Man Car Wash Corp., 450 Pa. 367, 301 A.2d 816 (1973). "(U) nless it is clear that no reasonable grounds existed or that the rules of law relied upon are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, the merits of the case or the reasons for or against the lower court's action cannot be considered." Mudd v. Borough of Rankin, 28 Pa.Cmwlth. 33, 35, 367 A.2d 338, 339 (1976). Put another way, we may inquire only as to whether the court below committed a manifest abuse of discretion. Rush v. Airport Commercial Properties, Inc., 28 Pa.Cmwlth. 51, 367 A.2d 370 (1976) (allocatur denied).

Three criteria have been established for the granting of a preliminary injunction, which, as a harsh and extraordinary remedy, is to be granted only when and if each criteria has been fully and completely established. Credit Alliance Corp., supra; Gillette Co. v. Master, 408 Pa. 202, 182 A.2d 734 (1962). They are: (1) the preliminary injunction must be necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm which could not be compensated for by damages; (2) greater injury would result from the denial of the preliminary injunction than from the granting of it; and (3) it would operate to restore the parties to the status quo as it existed prior to the alleged wrongful conduct. In addition to meeting all three criteria, the court must be convinced that plaintiffs' right to a preliminary injunction is clear, Credit Alliance Corp., supra; Rush, supra, and general equity jurisdiction must be warranted.

Committee of Seventy v. Albert, 33 Pa.Cmwlth. 44, 49, 381 A.2d 188, 190 (1977) (emphasis in original).

Judge Scirica found that the petitioners did not satisfy the first and...