Local magisterial courts to hear complaints filed by Pittsburgh’s DOMI | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Local magisterial courts to hear complaints filed by Pittsburgh’s DOMI

Bob Bauder
1395167_web1_web-courts9
Tribune-Review

All civil complaints filed by Pittsburgh’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure will be heard by district judges with jurisdiction over the neighborhood where an alleged violation occurred, according to a recent Allegheny County court order.

DOMI sought a change because it found that judges familiar with a neighborhood had a better understanding of the impact of an alleged violation, according to the Mayor’s Office.

The department is responsible for management of public rights of way and has cited people for violations such as improper utility cuts and illegal street and sidewalk closures. Those complaints have traditionally been handled by district judges assigned to duty in the Downtown Pittsburgh Municipal Court.

“This order provides for just what Pittsburgh residents and community groups have long wanted – more local oversight of quality-of-life issues by the neighborhood judges who know their communities best,” Mayor Bill Peduto said in a statement.

Common Pleas President Judge Kim Berkeley Clark issued an order last week that requires DOMI to file complaints in a Magisterial District Court overseeing the area where a violation occurred.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-765-2312, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.