Legal Opinion · Dissent

Beatty v. State Board of Undertakers

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 21, 1945No. Appeal, 24Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Me. Justice Jones:

The opinion of the Court states that “In the present case neither the jurisdiction nor the regularity of the proceedings is challenged.” As I understood the oral argument of appellant’s counsel and read his brief, his entire attack consists of his contention that the statute under which the State Board of Undertakers operates confers no jurisdiction on the Board to enter an order such as the one which gave rise to the proceeding now under review. As I agree with the appellant’s contention, I have no alternative but to dissent from the action of the Court.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Trainer v. WolfeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  2. Commonwealth v. KrickbaumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API